(11-23-2017 11:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-23-2017 10:30 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-23-2017 07:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 09:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 08:48 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Three things stand out for me here.

1) While Aresco's P6 campaign hasn't had an impact on the real world, sadly, it does seem to have influenced AAC fans on these boards. I keep explaining that even in an "unbiased" system like MC, there is no way UCF will make the top four and the playoffs, so it really doesn't matter if they are #10 or #12 or #15.

So what explains all the whining? Seems like many of these AAC fans are shocked to realize that despite the P6 yard markers and helmet stickers and Aresco tweets, the CFP obviously is treating the AAC best teams like the hired help, not like one of the invited guests. AAC teams are getting treated like the G5 they are.

This is surprising to nobody in the real world, but i guess it is shocking to those who live in Aresco World.

2) There is a strong stench of hypocrisy. E.g., recall several threads where AAC fans boasted of an "AAC premium" compared to other G5 in the CFP. Many claimed that the AAC is so well-respected by the CFP that an AAC champ with one or even two losses would be viewed as superior to other G5 champs that were undefeated. And yet ... these same AAC fans who bitterly complain about "bias" against the AAC compared to the P5 were boasting and happy about the alleged CFP bias in favor of the AAC vs the other G5.

3) I thought of the current top 10 teams and can't think of even one I'd expect UCF to beat. Which ones do you think they'd beat?

Alabama?
Miami?
Clemson?
Wisconsin?
Oklahoma?
Auburn?
Notre Dame?
Ohio State?
Georgia?
Penn State? .... Hmmmmm ... just maybe.

Remember, UCF has beaten nobody but other AAC teams plus an FCS team, an FIU team that is 6th in C-USA, and a 4-7 Maryland team in last place in their B1G division, behind even Rutgers. Don't be bedazzled by 100 point wins vs awful teams.

In reply--

1) Im one that has maintained pretty much for the last 2 years that a G5 does not have any way to make the play off and that Houston would not have been in last year had they run the table. I was unsure on the topic the first couple of years, then if became clear that G5's are not even allowed in the top ten. My guess is that "top 10" ranking is reserved for a 2016 Houston type that runs the table. A top 4 finish is impossible with the current structure of the committee.

2) No hypocrisy. I can easily see that it is reasonably plausible that some one-loss P5 teams SHOULD be in front of an undefeated G5. I see the silliness of 2, 3, and 4 loss P5's in front of an undefeated G5. I figured the AAC would at least get a 1-game deference vs the other G5's (and they largely have).

3) Really? Seriously? You "lol" at the prospect of UCF beating Notre Dame? That would be the same Notre Dame that barely squeaked by Navy just last week at home (same Navy UCF destroyed?)? I think UCF would prison rape that slow Wisconsin team. Oklahoma....didnt they get crushed by a 4-loss mid-pack AAC team just last year? Dont see Penn State as all that. So, yeah, that's nearly half Id flat out expect them beat. Plus, Id give them a punchers chance against all the rest but Bama. Your as blinded by a brand name as the committe. At some point you need to understand that the name on the jersey is just a name. Like mutual funds, past performance may not be a guarantee of future performance.

Im completely willing to concede they may not be a top 4 team (probably are not), but I know they are a top 10 team.

1) Wasn't talking about you specifically, just the general AAC community of loons who have drunk the P6 kool-aid, and there are many of them. It does explain the irrational whining about UCF's apparent "ceiling" in the CFP.

2) Plenty of hypocrisy, though not necessarily from you. Lots of boasting about alleged pro-AAC bias in the CFP compared to other G5 (which i haven't seen, btw), but anger at anti-AAC bias compared to P5. Can't have it both ways.

3) You seriously would favor UCF over Notre Dame? A team with much better players and with wins over much better teams?

Seriously, I've never seen you so unbalanced as in that #3 eruption above. UCF over Oklahoma and Wisconsin? Because they rout FIU and Memphis and Temple while schlepping by the likes of Navy and SMU?

Seriously?

UCF destroyed Navy? Funny, i recall Navy being down 24-21 with 7 minutes left with the ball at around the UCF 40. Looked like Navy was going to take the lead, and yet UCF somehow destroyed them? That's really weird.

Funny...a 10 point win over Navy in Annapolis (where Navy doesn’t lose a lot) is unimpressive. Yet your tellin* me m newness to think UCF could beat a Notre Dame squad that barel6 won a one score game in thier home stadium. Again, either unlikely G5 victory outcomes have been occurring at statistical rate that doesn5 make sense (75%) in the G5 vs P5 access bowl—or the polling is significantly underrating the G5. Given one is real results and one is simply opinion based on made up criteria like the “eye test”—the simplest outcome is most likely. The polls are under ranking the G5 champs (CFP being among the worst offenders).

By the way, the last 4 years is not some carefully selected sample. Over the course of the entire BCS/CFP history that winning G5vsP5 NYD Bowl winning percentage has been well above 50%—which is further FACT based data indicating the current bias against the top G5 teams is unreasonable. In fact, we don’t see that bias as much in polling prior to the CFP era. G5’s would sometimes rise into the top 10–even the top5. Today, the Selection Committee tends to influence the other polls far more than the other way around (which was the entire intent). So, essentially, not only is the current anti-G5 bias you support wrong headed, it’s a relatively recent phenomenon (at least in its current level of bias)—not some long held view.

So these wins were genuine upsets, not cases of underrated G5 really being better than their P5 opponents. So what explains that? one obvious factor would be the difference in motivation. No P5 team is excited to play a G5 in a major bowl, whereas the G5 team is chomping at the bit to beat the P5 and "prove themselves".

It must be nice to fabricate an excuse for any instance of a P5 losing in an elite bowl to a G5. Narrow and simple, just what I would expect.

The more realistic and plausible excuse would be that the polls were wrong and it is hard to determine what team is better than another without proving it on the field, hence why the playoffs should be expanded. NCAA Men's and Women's basketball, NBA, NFL, NHL, MLB, FCS, etc etc etc all have real playoffs.

(11-23-2017 11:39 AM)otown Wrote:  

(11-23-2017 11:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-23-2017 10:30 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-23-2017 07:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 09:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  In reply--

1) Im one that has maintained pretty much for the last 2 years that a G5 does not have any way to make the play off and that Houston would not have been in last year had they run the table. I was unsure on the topic the first couple of years, then if became clear that G5's are not even allowed in the top ten. My guess is that "top 10" ranking is reserved for a 2016 Houston type that runs the table. A top 4 finish is impossible with the current structure of the committee.

2) No hypocrisy. I can easily see that it is reasonably plausible that some one-loss P5 teams SHOULD be in front of an undefeated G5. I see the silliness of 2, 3, and 4 loss P5's in front of an undefeated G5. I figured the AAC would at least get a 1-game deference vs the other G5's (and they largely have).

3) Really? Seriously? You "lol" at the prospect of UCF beating Notre Dame? That would be the same Notre Dame that barely squeaked by Navy just last week at home (same Navy UCF destroyed?)? I think UCF would prison rape that slow Wisconsin team. Oklahoma....didnt they get crushed by a 4-loss mid-pack AAC team just last year? Dont see Penn State as all that. So, yeah, that's nearly half Id flat out expect them beat. Plus, Id give them a punchers chance against all the rest but Bama. Your as blinded by a brand name as the committe. At some point you need to understand that the name on the jersey is just a name. Like mutual funds, past performance may not be a guarantee of future performance.

Im completely willing to concede they may not be a top 4 team (probably are not), but I know they are a top 10 team.

1) Wasn't talking about you specifically, just the general AAC community of loons who have drunk the P6 kool-aid, and there are many of them. It does explain the irrational whining about UCF's apparent "ceiling" in the CFP.

2) Plenty of hypocrisy, though not necessarily from you. Lots of boasting about alleged pro-AAC bias in the CFP compared to other G5 (which i haven't seen, btw), but anger at anti-AAC bias compared to P5. Can't have it both ways.

3) You seriously would favor UCF over Notre Dame? A team with much better players and with wins over much better teams?

Seriously, I've never seen you so unbalanced as in that #3 eruption above. UCF over Oklahoma and Wisconsin? Because they rout FIU and Memphis and Temple while schlepping by the likes of Navy and SMU?

Seriously?

UCF destroyed Navy? Funny, i recall Navy being down 24-21 with 7 minutes left with the ball at around the UCF 40. Looked like Navy was going to take the lead, and yet UCF somehow destroyed them? That's really weird.

Funny...a 10 point win over Navy in Annapolis (where Navy doesn’t lose a lot) is unimpressive. Yet your tellin* me m newness to think UCF could beat a Notre Dame squad that barel6 won a one score game in thier home stadium. Again, either unlikely G5 victory outcomes have been occurring at statistical rate that doesn5 make sense (75%) in the G5 vs P5 access bowl—or the polling is significantly underrating the G5. Given one is real results and one is simply opinion based on made up criteria like the “eye test”—the simplest outcome is most likely. The polls are under ranking the G5 champs (CFP being among the worst offenders).

By the way, the last 4 years is not some carefully selected sample. Over the course of the entire BCS/CFP history that winning G5vsP5 NYD Bowl winning percentage has been well above 50%—which is further FACT based data indicating the current bias against the top G5 teams is unreasonable. In fact, we don’t see that bias as much in polling prior to the CFP era. G5’s would sometimes rise into the top 10–even the top5. Today, the Selection Committee tends to influence the other polls far more than the other way around (which was the entire intent). So, essentially, not only is the current anti-G5 bias you support wrong headed, it’s a relatively recent phenomenon (at least in its current level of bias)—not some long held view.

So these wins were genuine upsets, not cases of underrated G5 really being better than their P5 opponents. So what explains that? one obvious factor would be the difference in motivation. No P5 team is excited to play a G5 in a major bowl, whereas the G5 team is chomping at the bit to beat the P5 and "prove themselves".

It must be nice to fabricate an excuse for any instance of a P5 losing in an elite bowl to a G5. Narrow and simple, just what I would expect.

The more realistic and plausible excuse would be that the polls were wrong and it is hard to determine what team is better than another without proving it on the field, hence why the playoffs should be expanded. NCAA Men's and Women's basketball, NBA, NFL, NHL, MLB, FCS, etc etc etc all have real playoffs.

As I explained, but which your IQ is apparently too low to grasp, it wasn't just the polls that had the G5 teams ranked lower, it was the computers as well.

No, the best explanation is the motivational one: Nobody at Georgia will ever get excited about playing UCF, but if UCF plays Georgia in the Peach Bowl, well, that's your Super Bowl.

(11-23-2017 12:34 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-23-2017 11:39 AM)otown Wrote:  

(11-23-2017 11:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-23-2017 10:30 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-23-2017 07:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  1) Wasn't talking about you specifically, just the general AAC community of loons who have drunk the P6 kool-aid, and there are many of them. It does explain the irrational whining about UCF's apparent "ceiling" in the CFP.

2) Plenty of hypocrisy, though not necessarily from you. Lots of boasting about alleged pro-AAC bias in the CFP compared to other G5 (which i haven't seen, btw), but anger at anti-AAC bias compared to P5. Can't have it both ways.

3) You seriously would favor UCF over Notre Dame? A team with much better players and with wins over much better teams?

Seriously, I've never seen you so unbalanced as in that #3 eruption above. UCF over Oklahoma and Wisconsin? Because they rout FIU and Memphis and Temple while schlepping by the likes of Navy and SMU?

Seriously?

UCF destroyed Navy? Funny, i recall Navy being down 24-21 with 7 minutes left with the ball at around the UCF 40. Looked like Navy was going to take the lead, and yet UCF somehow destroyed them? That's really weird.

Funny...a 10 point win over Navy in Annapolis (where Navy doesn’t lose a lot) is unimpressive. Yet your tellin* me m newness to think UCF could beat a Notre Dame squad that barel6 won a one score game in thier home stadium. Again, either unlikely G5 victory outcomes have been occurring at statistical rate that doesn5 make sense (75%) in the G5 vs P5 access bowl—or the polling is significantly underrating the G5. Given one is real results and one is simply opinion based on made up criteria like the “eye test”—the simplest outcome is most likely. The polls are under ranking the G5 champs (CFP being among the worst offenders).

By the way, the last 4 years is not some carefully selected sample. Over the course of the entire BCS/CFP history that winning G5vsP5 NYD Bowl winning percentage has been well above 50%—which is further FACT based data indicating the current bias against the top G5 teams is unreasonable. In fact, we don’t see that bias as much in polling prior to the CFP era. G5’s would sometimes rise into the top 10–even the top5. Today, the Selection Committee tends to influence the other polls far more than the other way around (which was the entire intent). So, essentially, not only is the current anti-G5 bias you support wrong headed, it’s a relatively recent phenomenon (at least in its current level of bias)—not some long held view.

So these wins were genuine upsets, not cases of underrated G5 really being better than their P5 opponents. So what explains that? one obvious factor would be the difference in motivation. No P5 team is excited to play a G5 in a major bowl, whereas the G5 team is chomping at the bit to beat the P5 and "prove themselves".

It must be nice to fabricate an excuse for any instance of a P5 losing in an elite bowl to a G5. Narrow and simple, just what I would expect.

The more realistic and plausible excuse would be that the polls were wrong and it is hard to determine what team is better than another without proving it on the field, hence why the playoffs should be expanded. NCAA Men's and Women's basketball, NBA, NFL, NHL, MLB, FCS, etc etc etc all have real playoffs.

As I explained, but which your IQ is apparently too low to grasp, it wasn't just the polls that had the G5 teams ranked lower, it was the computers as well.

No, the best explanation is the motivational one: Nobody at Georgia will ever get excited about playing UCF, but if UCF plays Georgia in the Peach Bowl, well, that's your Super Bowl.

Narrow and simple. Just how you like it. It's ok, I know the big picture is a hard thing for you to grasp. The computers were most likely wrong as well with those teams. Thats why the playoffs should be expanded. But since your mind is so narrow and simplistic, what can I say, bless your heart.

(11-23-2017 12:45 PM)otown Wrote:  

(11-23-2017 12:34 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-23-2017 11:39 AM)otown Wrote:  

(11-23-2017 11:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-23-2017 10:30 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Funny...a 10 point win over Navy in Annapolis (where Navy doesn’t lose a lot) is unimpressive. Yet your tellin* me m newness to think UCF could beat a Notre Dame squad that barel6 won a one score game in thier home stadium. Again, either unlikely G5 victory outcomes have been occurring at statistical rate that doesn5 make sense (75%) in the G5 vs P5 access bowl—or the polling is significantly underrating the G5. Given one is real results and one is simply opinion based on made up criteria like the “eye test”—the simplest outcome is most likely. The polls are under ranking the G5 champs (CFP being among the worst offenders).

By the way, the last 4 years is not some carefully selected sample. Over the course of the entire BCS/CFP history that winning G5vsP5 NYD Bowl winning percentage has been well above 50%—which is further FACT based data indicating the current bias against the top G5 teams is unreasonable. In fact, we don’t see that bias as much in polling prior to the CFP era. G5’s would sometimes rise into the top 10–even the top5. Today, the Selection Committee tends to influence the other polls far more than the other way around (which was the entire intent). So, essentially, not only is the current anti-G5 bias you support wrong headed, it’s a relatively recent phenomenon (at least in its current level of bias)—not some long held view.

So these wins were genuine upsets, not cases of underrated G5 really being better than their P5 opponents. So what explains that? one obvious factor would be the difference in motivation. No P5 team is excited to play a G5 in a major bowl, whereas the G5 team is chomping at the bit to beat the P5 and "prove themselves".

It must be nice to fabricate an excuse for any instance of a P5 losing in an elite bowl to a G5. Narrow and simple, just what I would expect.

The more realistic and plausible excuse would be that the polls were wrong and it is hard to determine what team is better than another without proving it on the field, hence why the playoffs should be expanded. NCAA Men's and Women's basketball, NBA, NFL, NHL, MLB, FCS, etc etc etc all have real playoffs.

As I explained, but which your IQ is apparently too low to grasp, it wasn't just the polls that had the G5 teams ranked lower, it was the computers as well.

No, the best explanation is the motivational one: Nobody at Georgia will ever get excited about playing UCF, but if UCF plays Georgia in the Peach Bowl, well, that's your Super Bowl.

Narrow and simple. Just how you like it.

You really don't understand much about evidence, data, logic, anything involving higher-order thinking.

It's sad. But even a sad bubble-dwelling pedant deserves holiday wishes, so ... have a great day!

(11-23-2017 11:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-23-2017 10:30 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-23-2017 07:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 09:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 08:48 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Three things stand out for me here.

1) While Aresco's P6 campaign hasn't had an impact on the real world, sadly, it does seem to have influenced AAC fans on these boards. I keep explaining that even in an "unbiased" system like MC, there is no way UCF will make the top four and the playoffs, so it really doesn't matter if they are #10 or #12 or #15.

So what explains all the whining? Seems like many of these AAC fans are shocked to realize that despite the P6 yard markers and helmet stickers and Aresco tweets, the CFP obviously is treating the AAC best teams like the hired help, not like one of the invited guests. AAC teams are getting treated like the G5 they are.

This is surprising to nobody in the real world, but i guess it is shocking to those who live in Aresco World.

2) There is a strong stench of hypocrisy. E.g., recall several threads where AAC fans boasted of an "AAC premium" compared to other G5 in the CFP. Many claimed that the AAC is so well-respected by the CFP that an AAC champ with one or even two losses would be viewed as superior to other G5 champs that were undefeated. And yet ... these same AAC fans who bitterly complain about "bias" against the AAC compared to the P5 were boasting and happy about the alleged CFP bias in favor of the AAC vs the other G5.

3) I thought of the current top 10 teams and can't think of even one I'd expect UCF to beat. Which ones do you think they'd beat?

Alabama?
Miami?
Clemson?
Wisconsin?
Oklahoma?
Auburn?
Notre Dame?
Ohio State?
Georgia?
Penn State? .... Hmmmmm ... just maybe.

Remember, UCF has beaten nobody but other AAC teams plus an FCS team, an FIU team that is 6th in C-USA, and a 4-7 Maryland team in last place in their B1G division, behind even Rutgers. Don't be bedazzled by 100 point wins vs awful teams.

In reply--

1) Im one that has maintained pretty much for the last 2 years that a G5 does not have any way to make the play off and that Houston would not have been in last year had they run the table. I was unsure on the topic the first couple of years, then if became clear that G5's are not even allowed in the top ten. My guess is that "top 10" ranking is reserved for a 2016 Houston type that runs the table. A top 4 finish is impossible with the current structure of the committee.

2) No hypocrisy. I can easily see that it is reasonably plausible that some one-loss P5 teams SHOULD be in front of an undefeated G5. I see the silliness of 2, 3, and 4 loss P5's in front of an undefeated G5. I figured the AAC would at least get a 1-game deference vs the other G5's (and they largely have).

3) Really? Seriously? You "lol" at the prospect of UCF beating Notre Dame? That would be the same Notre Dame that barely squeaked by Navy just last week at home (same Navy UCF destroyed?)? I think UCF would prison rape that slow Wisconsin team. Oklahoma....didnt they get crushed by a 4-loss mid-pack AAC team just last year? Dont see Penn State as all that. So, yeah, that's nearly half Id flat out expect them beat. Plus, Id give them a punchers chance against all the rest but Bama. Your as blinded by a brand name as the committe. At some point you need to understand that the name on the jersey is just a name. Like mutual funds, past performance may not be a guarantee of future performance.

Im completely willing to concede they may not be a top 4 team (probably are not), but I know they are a top 10 team.

1) Wasn't talking about you specifically, just the general AAC community of loons who have drunk the P6 kool-aid, and there are many of them. It does explain the irrational whining about UCF's apparent "ceiling" in the CFP.

2) Plenty of hypocrisy, though not necessarily from you. Lots of boasting about alleged pro-AAC bias in the CFP compared to other G5 (which i haven't seen, btw), but anger at anti-AAC bias compared to P5. Can't have it both ways.

3) You seriously would favor UCF over Notre Dame? A team with much better players and with wins over much better teams?

Seriously, I've never seen you so unbalanced as in that #3 eruption above. UCF over Oklahoma and Wisconsin? Because they rout FIU and Memphis and Temple while schlepping by the likes of Navy and SMU?

Seriously?

UCF destroyed Navy? Funny, i recall Navy being down 24-21 with 7 minutes left with the ball at around the UCF 40. Looked like Navy was going to take the lead, and yet UCF somehow destroyed them? That's really weird.

Funny...a 10 point win over Navy in Annapolis (where Navy doesn’t lose a lot) is unimpressive. Yet your tellin* me m newness to think UCF could beat a Notre Dame squad that barel6 won a one score game in thier home stadium. Again, either unlikely G5 victory outcomes have been occurring at statistical rate that doesn5 make sense (75%) in the G5 vs P5 access bowl—or the polling is significantly underrating the G5. Given one is real results and one is simply opinion based on made up criteria like the “eye test”—the simplest outcome is most likely. The polls are under ranking the G5 champs (CFP being among the worst offenders).

By the way, the last 4 years is not some carefully selected sample. Over the course of the entire BCS/CFP history that winning G5vsP5 NYD Bowl winning percentage has been well above 50%—which is further FACT based data indicating the current bias against the top G5 teams is unreasonable. In fact, we don’t see that bias as much in polling prior to the CFP era. G5’s would sometimes rise into the top 10–even the top5. Today, the Selection Committee tends to influence the other polls far more than the other way around (which was the entire intent). So, essentially, not only is the current anti-G5 bias you support wrong headed, it’s a relatively recent phenomenon (at least in its current level of bias)—not some long held view.

You claimed UCF "destroyed" Navy. That was patently ridiculous so why are you still defending it?

The problem with your claim about underrating top G5 is that it's not just the human pollsters that have had the G5 team ranked behind their P5 bowl opponent.

Look at the Massey Composite where the G5 won the NY6 bowl the past four years: Houston was ranked behind FSU, Boise was ranked behind Arizona, and UCF was ranked behind Baylor, and in 2008 they had Utah behind Alabama.

So these wins were genuine upsets, not cases of underrated G5 really being better than their P5 opponents. So what explains that? one obvious factor would be the difference in motivation. No P5 team is excited to play a G5 in a major bowl, whereas the G5 team is chomping at the bit to beat the P5 and "prove themselves".

Polls and computers are meant to be “predictors” of on field results. They are just models and opinions. When they are wrong more often than right with respect to the performance of top G5 teams, it means the models/opinions are simply flawed. When a company works despite everyone saying it can’t be profitable—it’s not an upset. The opinion is just wrong. Used to be that the widespread opinion was a black QB just couldn’t be successful in the NFL. That opinion took a long time to unseat despite the fact it was disproven many times. Just because an opinion is widely held doesn’t make it right.

Is motivation a factor? Maybe. But let’s assume motivation IS a factor. So what? Motivation is part of football. Hell, motivation is the reason it is so difficult to end a season undefeated. Every team has additional motivation to beat you. That said, the idea that any team isn’t motivated to win a huge nationally televised CFP holiday bowl game in front of 70,000 fans is kind of a reach (especslly seniors playing thier last game).

If we are honest, we know what’s going on. Models that fail at a 75% are typically discarded. There is a reason the current model is not discarded. The reason is the current model is guaranteed to give the answer that the people in power want. It’s that simple. Ask any sports writer—they all know no G5 has any chance of being in the playoff regardless of who they schedule and who they beat.

(11-23-2017 02:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-23-2017 11:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-23-2017 10:30 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-23-2017 07:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 09:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  In reply--

1) Im one that has maintained pretty much for the last 2 years that a G5 does not have any way to make the play off and that Houston would not have been in last year had they run the table. I was unsure on the topic the first couple of years, then if became clear that G5's are not even allowed in the top ten. My guess is that "top 10" ranking is reserved for a 2016 Houston type that runs the table. A top 4 finish is impossible with the current structure of the committee.

2) No hypocrisy. I can easily see that it is reasonably plausible that some one-loss P5 teams SHOULD be in front of an undefeated G5. I see the silliness of 2, 3, and 4 loss P5's in front of an undefeated G5. I figured the AAC would at least get a 1-game deference vs the other G5's (and they largely have).

3) Really? Seriously? You "lol" at the prospect of UCF beating Notre Dame? That would be the same Notre Dame that barely squeaked by Navy just last week at home (same Navy UCF destroyed?)? I think UCF would prison rape that slow Wisconsin team. Oklahoma....didnt they get crushed by a 4-loss mid-pack AAC team just last year? Dont see Penn State as all that. So, yeah, that's nearly half Id flat out expect them beat. Plus, Id give them a punchers chance against all the rest but Bama. Your as blinded by a brand name as the committe. At some point you need to understand that the name on the jersey is just a name. Like mutual funds, past performance may not be a guarantee of future performance.

Im completely willing to concede they may not be a top 4 team (probably are not), but I know they are a top 10 team.

1) Wasn't talking about you specifically, just the general AAC community of loons who have drunk the P6 kool-aid, and there are many of them. It does explain the irrational whining about UCF's apparent "ceiling" in the CFP.

2) Plenty of hypocrisy, though not necessarily from you. Lots of boasting about alleged pro-AAC bias in the CFP compared to other G5 (which i haven't seen, btw), but anger at anti-AAC bias compared to P5. Can't have it both ways.

3) You seriously would favor UCF over Notre Dame? A team with much better players and with wins over much better teams?

Seriously, I've never seen you so unbalanced as in that #3 eruption above. UCF over Oklahoma and Wisconsin? Because they rout FIU and Memphis and Temple while schlepping by the likes of Navy and SMU?

Seriously?

UCF destroyed Navy? Funny, i recall Navy being down 24-21 with 7 minutes left with the ball at around the UCF 40. Looked like Navy was going to take the lead, and yet UCF somehow destroyed them? That's really weird.

Funny...a 10 point win over Navy in Annapolis (where Navy doesn’t lose a lot) is unimpressive. Yet your tellin* me m newness to think UCF could beat a Notre Dame squad that barel6 won a one score game in thier home stadium. Again, either unlikely G5 victory outcomes have been occurring at statistical rate that doesn5 make sense (75%) in the G5 vs P5 access bowl—or the polling is significantly underrating the G5. Given one is real results and one is simply opinion based on made up criteria like the “eye test”—the simplest outcome is most likely. The polls are under ranking the G5 champs (CFP being among the worst offenders).

By the way, the last 4 years is not some carefully selected sample. Over the course of the entire BCS/CFP history that winning G5vsP5 NYD Bowl winning percentage has been well above 50%—which is further FACT based data indicating the current bias against the top G5 teams is unreasonable. In fact, we don’t see that bias as much in polling prior to the CFP era. G5’s would sometimes rise into the top 10–even the top5. Today, the Selection Committee tends to influence the other polls far more than the other way around (which was the entire intent). So, essentially, not only is the current anti-G5 bias you support wrong headed, it’s a relatively recent phenomenon (at least in its current level of bias)—not some long held view.

You claimed UCF "destroyed" Navy. That was patently ridiculous so why are you still defending it?

The problem with your claim about underrating top G5 is that it's not just the human pollsters that have had the G5 team ranked behind their P5 bowl opponent.

Look at the Massey Composite where the G5 won the NY6 bowl the past four years: Houston was ranked behind FSU, Boise was ranked behind Arizona, and UCF was ranked behind Baylor, and in 2008 they had Utah behind Alabama.

So these wins were genuine upsets, not cases of underrated G5 really being better than their P5 opponents. So what explains that? one obvious factor would be the difference in motivation. No P5 team is excited to play a G5 in a major bowl, whereas the G5 team is chomping at the bit to beat the P5 and "prove themselves".

Polls and computers are meant to be “predictors” of on field results. They are just models and opinions. When they are wrong more often than right with respect to the performance of top G5 teams, it means the models/opinions are simply flawed. When a company works despite everyone saying it can’t be profitable—it’s not an upset. The opinion is just wrong. Used to be that the widespread opinion was a black QB just couldn’t be successful in the NFL. That opinion took a long time to unseat despite the fact it was disproven many times. Just because an opinion is widely held doesn’t make it right.

Is motivation a factor? Maybe. But let’s assume motivation IS a factor. So what? Motivation is part of football. Hell, motivation is the reason it is so difficult to end a season undefeated. Every team has additional motivation to beat you. That said, the idea that any team isn’t motivated to win a huge nationally televised CFP holiday bowl game in front of 70,000 fans is kind of a reach (especslly seniors playing thier last game).

If we are honest, we know what’s going on. Models that fail at a 75% are typically discarded. There is a reason the current model is not discarded. The reason is the current model is guaranteed to give the answer that the people in power want. It’s that simple. Ask any sports writer—they all know no G5 has any chance of being in the playoff regardless of who they schedule and who they beat.

Who said polls and computers are meant to be predictors? I don't know of any poll that works that way, and while some computers models are meant to be predictive, many, possibly even most, are not.

(11-23-2017 04:51 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(11-23-2017 02:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-23-2017 11:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-23-2017 10:30 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-23-2017 07:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  1) Wasn't talking about you specifically, just the general AAC community of loons who have drunk the P6 kool-aid, and there are many of them. It does explain the irrational whining about UCF's apparent "ceiling" in the CFP.

2) Plenty of hypocrisy, though not necessarily from you. Lots of boasting about alleged pro-AAC bias in the CFP compared to other G5 (which i haven't seen, btw), but anger at anti-AAC bias compared to P5. Can't have it both ways.

3) You seriously would favor UCF over Notre Dame? A team with much better players and with wins over much better teams?

Seriously, I've never seen you so unbalanced as in that #3 eruption above. UCF over Oklahoma and Wisconsin? Because they rout FIU and Memphis and Temple while schlepping by the likes of Navy and SMU?

Seriously?

UCF destroyed Navy? Funny, i recall Navy being down 24-21 with 7 minutes left with the ball at around the UCF 40. Looked like Navy was going to take the lead, and yet UCF somehow destroyed them? That's really weird.

Funny...a 10 point win over Navy in Annapolis (where Navy doesn’t lose a lot) is unimpressive. Yet your tellin* me m newness to think UCF could beat a Notre Dame squad that barel6 won a one score game in thier home stadium. Again, either unlikely G5 victory outcomes have been occurring at statistical rate that doesn5 make sense (75%) in the G5 vs P5 access bowl—or the polling is significantly underrating the G5. Given one is real results and one is simply opinion based on made up criteria like the “eye test”—the simplest outcome is most likely. The polls are under ranking the G5 champs (CFP being among the worst offenders).

By the way, the last 4 years is not some carefully selected sample. Over the course of the entire BCS/CFP history that winning G5vsP5 NYD Bowl winning percentage has been well above 50%—which is further FACT based data indicating the current bias against the top G5 teams is unreasonable. In fact, we don’t see that bias as much in polling prior to the CFP era. G5’s would sometimes rise into the top 10–even the top5. Today, the Selection Committee tends to influence the other polls far more than the other way around (which was the entire intent). So, essentially, not only is the current anti-G5 bias you support wrong headed, it’s a relatively recent phenomenon (at least in its current level of bias)—not some long held view.

You claimed UCF "destroyed" Navy. That was patently ridiculous so why are you still defending it?

The problem with your claim about underrating top G5 is that it's not just the human pollsters that have had the G5 team ranked behind their P5 bowl opponent.

Look at the Massey Composite where the G5 won the NY6 bowl the past four years: Houston was ranked behind FSU, Boise was ranked behind Arizona, and UCF was ranked behind Baylor, and in 2008 they had Utah behind Alabama.

So these wins were genuine upsets, not cases of underrated G5 really being better than their P5 opponents. So what explains that? one obvious factor would be the difference in motivation. No P5 team is excited to play a G5 in a major bowl, whereas the G5 team is chomping at the bit to beat the P5 and "prove themselves".

Polls and computers are meant to be “predictors” of on field results. They are just models and opinions. When they are wrong more often than right with respect to the performance of top G5 teams, it means the models/opinions are simply flawed. When a company works despite everyone saying it can’t be profitable—it’s not an upset. The opinion is just wrong. Used to be that the widespread opinion was a black QB just couldn’t be successful in the NFL. That opinion took a long time to unseat despite the fact it was disproven many times. Just because an opinion is widely held doesn’t make it right.

Is motivation a factor? Maybe. But let’s assume motivation IS a factor. So what? Motivation is part of football. Hell, motivation is the reason it is so difficult to end a season undefeated. Every team has additional motivation to beat you. That said, the idea that any team isn’t motivated to win a huge nationally televised CFP holiday bowl game in front of 70,000 fans is kind of a reach (especslly seniors playing thier last game).

If we are honest, we know what’s going on. Models that fail at a 75% are typically discarded. There is a reason the current model is not discarded. The reason is the current model is guaranteed to give the answer that the people in power want. It’s that simple. Ask any sports writer—they all know no G5 has any chance of being in the playoff regardless of who they schedule and who they beat.

Who said polls and computers are meant to be predictors? I don't know of any poll that works that way, and while some computers models are meant to be predictive, many, possibly even most, are not.

Well they sure as neck at not that accurate on predicting who is better. Call me old school, or even call me a fan of pretty much every other major sport down to high school. Prove it on the field, expand the playoffs. Literally, the college football process is the only one where there can be a questions about whether everyone was given a chance to prove it on the field/court

(11-23-2017 02:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-23-2017 11:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-23-2017 10:30 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-23-2017 07:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 09:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  In reply--

1) Im one that has maintained pretty much for the last 2 years that a G5 does not have any way to make the play off and that Houston would not have been in last year had they run the table. I was unsure on the topic the first couple of years, then if became clear that G5's are not even allowed in the top ten. My guess is that "top 10" ranking is reserved for a 2016 Houston type that runs the table. A top 4 finish is impossible with the current structure of the committee.

2) No hypocrisy. I can easily see that it is reasonably plausible that some one-loss P5 teams SHOULD be in front of an undefeated G5. I see the silliness of 2, 3, and 4 loss P5's in front of an undefeated G5. I figured the AAC would at least get a 1-game deference vs the other G5's (and they largely have).

3) Really? Seriously? You "lol" at the prospect of UCF beating Notre Dame? That would be the same Notre Dame that barely squeaked by Navy just last week at home (same Navy UCF destroyed?)? I think UCF would prison rape that slow Wisconsin team. Oklahoma....didnt they get crushed by a 4-loss mid-pack AAC team just last year? Dont see Penn State as all that. So, yeah, that's nearly half Id flat out expect them beat. Plus, Id give them a punchers chance against all the rest but Bama. Your as blinded by a brand name as the committe. At some point you need to understand that the name on the jersey is just a name. Like mutual funds, past performance may not be a guarantee of future performance.

Im completely willing to concede they may not be a top 4 team (probably are not), but I know they are a top 10 team.

1) Wasn't talking about you specifically, just the general AAC community of loons who have drunk the P6 kool-aid, and there are many of them. It does explain the irrational whining about UCF's apparent "ceiling" in the CFP.

2) Plenty of hypocrisy, though not necessarily from you. Lots of boasting about alleged pro-AAC bias in the CFP compared to other G5 (which i haven't seen, btw), but anger at anti-AAC bias compared to P5. Can't have it both ways.

3) You seriously would favor UCF over Notre Dame? A team with much better players and with wins over much better teams?

Seriously, I've never seen you so unbalanced as in that #3 eruption above. UCF over Oklahoma and Wisconsin? Because they rout FIU and Memphis and Temple while schlepping by the likes of Navy and SMU?

Seriously?

UCF destroyed Navy? Funny, i recall Navy being down 24-21 with 7 minutes left with the ball at around the UCF 40. Looked like Navy was going to take the lead, and yet UCF somehow destroyed them? That's really weird.

Funny...a 10 point win over Navy in Annapolis (where Navy doesn’t lose a lot) is unimpressive. Yet your tellin* me m newness to think UCF could beat a Notre Dame squad that barel6 won a one score game in thier home stadium. Again, either unlikely G5 victory outcomes have been occurring at statistical rate that doesn5 make sense (75%) in the G5 vs P5 access bowl—or the polling is significantly underrating the G5. Given one is real results and one is simply opinion based on made up criteria like the “eye test”—the simplest outcome is most likely. The polls are under ranking the G5 champs (CFP being among the worst offenders).

By the way, the last 4 years is not some carefully selected sample. Over the course of the entire BCS/CFP history that winning G5vsP5 NYD Bowl winning percentage has been well above 50%—which is further FACT based data indicating the current bias against the top G5 teams is unreasonable. In fact, we don’t see that bias as much in polling prior to the CFP era. G5’s would sometimes rise into the top 10–even the top5. Today, the Selection Committee tends to influence the other polls far more than the other way around (which was the entire intent). So, essentially, not only is the current anti-G5 bias you support wrong headed, it’s a relatively recent phenomenon (at least in its current level of bias)—not some long held view.

You claimed UCF "destroyed" Navy. That was patently ridiculous so why are you still defending it?

The problem with your claim about underrating top G5 is that it's not just the human pollsters that have had the G5 team ranked behind their P5 bowl opponent.

Look at the Massey Composite where the G5 won the NY6 bowl the past four years: Houston was ranked behind FSU, Boise was ranked behind Arizona, and UCF was ranked behind Baylor, and in 2008 they had Utah behind Alabama.

So these wins were genuine upsets, not cases of underrated G5 really being better than their P5 opponents. So what explains that? one obvious factor would be the difference in motivation. No P5 team is excited to play a G5 in a major bowl, whereas the G5 team is chomping at the bit to beat the P5 and "prove themselves".

Polls and computers are meant to be “predictors” of on field results. They are just models and opinions. When they are wrong more often than right with respect to the performance of top G5 teams, it means the models/opinions are simply flawed. When a company works despite everyone saying it can’t be profitable—it’s not an upset. The opinion is just wrong. Used to be that the widespread opinion was a black QB just couldn’t be successful in the NFL. That opinion took a long time to unseat despite the fact it was disproven many times. Just because an opinion is widely held doesn’t make it right.

Is motivation a factor? Maybe. But let’s assume motivation IS a factor. So what? Motivation is part of football. Hell, motivation is the reason it is so difficult to end a season undefeated. Every team has additional motivation to beat you. That said, the idea that any team isn’t motivated to win a huge nationally televised CFP holiday bowl game in front of 70,000 fans is kind of a reach (especslly seniors playing thier last game).

Some computer models are predictive, others are not. E.g., Sagarin has different formulas for prediction and descriptive rankings, so the MC is likely a mish-mash of both. Beyond that, while it is clear how a human voter could be biased against a G5, as in "they play in a rinky dink conference so i just don't respect their achievements" it's not clear how a computer formula can be so biased. Do you think Peter Wolfe has a line of code that says "if team is from G5, deduct 5 points from its ranking"? That's highly unlikely.

No, rather than the entire universe of computers and pollsters being wrong, it's way more likely there's a "non-bias" explanation, and motivation is a good one.

And regarding motivation, the "so what?" is very important: If the reason G5 teams do well versus P5 in the NY6 bowls is motivation, than that doesn't mean there is anything biased about the process that puts the teams in those bowls, as this is a factor that is unique to playing a G5 team and thus doesn't reflect on the general quality of the P5 team in that game. The implication is that the P5 team would perform better if they were playing an opponent they respected and cared about beating. FSU doesn't show up for Houston, but they would for a Michigan or Texas.

And no, a lack of motivation isn't a stretch at all. The psychology of being "stuck" playing a UCF or a Western Michigan when you visualized yourself playing a blue blood like Georgia or LSU or USC or Ohio State is clear and obvious. Compounding that is the lack of upside. If you win, you know everyone will just say "so what, they beat a G5", if you lose, it's an embarrassment. Little glory = little motivation.

Of course all this has a measure of subjectivity. Assessing schedules have a lot of apples and oranges comparisons.
After this rivalry weekend and the conference championship games, there will probably be no more than two schools with half-convincing arguments they belong in the top four. It will not be controversy free, as usual; but the committee will be capable of defending what it decides. Buying it is never 100%.

UCF worrying about Mississippi State is a very narrow perspective, given the comparisons and rankings are not limited to two teams from different conferences consisting of uncommon opponents. USF needs to be UCF's focus, not where one SEC school is ranked.

Just like under the BCS. The G5 are always under ranked. But when they faced a higher ranked team? They usually win over that P5.

Utah blowing out Alabama
Boise State knocking off Oklahoma
TCU winning their BCS bowls
UCF blew away Baylor

Hawaii lost their game because their starting QB, Colt Brennan was injured in the first quarter.
Northern Illinois did not had their head coach.
Western Michigan did not had their's.
Tulane was there in the top 5 in rankings, but that was before the BCS rankings.
Marshall was really before Tulane made it. Both Tulane and Marshall was never invited to a FBS type bowl.
Houston, Fresno State and Southern Mississippi both missed the FBS bowl game because they lost their CCG.

Just so facts are straight, Western Michigan played in the Cotton Bowl on Jan 2nd, and Tracy Claeys was dismissed as head coach of Minnesota on Jan 3rd. So, while there may have been rumors during Bowl week, the job wasn’t even open. If you spout off “facts”, make sure they’re right!

(11-23-2017 07:12 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Just like under the BCS. The G5 are always under ranked. But when they faced a higher ranked team? They usually win over that P5.

Utah blowing out Alabama
Boise State knocking off Oklahoma
TCU winning their BCS bowls
UCF blew away Baylor

Hawaii lost their game because their starting QB, Colt Brennan was injured in the first quarter.
Northern Illinois did not had their head coach.
Western Michigan did not had their's.
Tulane was there in the top 5 in rankings, but that was before the BCS rankings.
Marshall was really before Tulane made it. Both Tulane and Marshall was never invited to a FBS type bowl.
Houston, Fresno State and Southern Mississippi both missed the FBS bowl game because they lost their CCG.

Colt Brennan was injured because Georgia defenders crushed him like an eggshell.

(11-23-2017 07:12 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Just like under the BCS. The G5 are always under ranked. But when they faced a higher ranked team? They usually win over that P5.

Utah blowing out Alabama
Boise State knocking off Oklahoma
TCU winning their BCS bowls
UCF blew away Baylor

Hawaii lost their game because their starting QB, Colt Brennan was injured in the first quarter.
Northern Illinois did not had their head coach.
Western Michigan did not had their's.
Tulane was there in the top 5 in rankings, but that was before the BCS rankings.
Marshall was really before Tulane made it. Both Tulane and Marshall was never invited to a FBS type bowl.
Houston, Fresno State and Southern Mississippi both missed the FBS bowl game because they lost their CCG.

Didn’t you hear? Those poor P5 teams valiantly battled a motivation handicap!

There are 10 FBS conferences, 5 autonomous conferences and 5 that are not
This means there are two FBS divisions
The autonomous division has a selection Committee to decide 4 teams to play a championship deciding game that has the TV catching names
The other FBS division has no committee and no championship game
Both FBS divisions do have the same number of scholarships
The college football powers to be have a master plan it seems to slowly step by step to create a complete separation or one FBS league or division and I think they are more than 75% to achieving their goal
The final nail in the coffin IMO will be when the autonomous division try’s to change the amount of scholarships the non autonomous FBS conferences get” fewer “
If this dose in fact happen then I would think the best course of action the non autonomous conferences separate from the NCAA and make there own rules , like how many scholarships they want
just say’n

(11-23-2017 08:10 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  There are 10 FBS conferences, 5 autonomous conferences and 5 that are not
This means there are two FBS divisions
The autonomous division has a selection Committee to decide 4 teams to play a championship deciding game that has the TV catching names
The other FBS division has no committee and no championship game
Both FBS divisions do have the same number of scholarships
The college football powers to be have a master plan it seems to slowly step by step to create a complete separation or one FBS league or division and I think they are more than 75% to achieving their goal
The final nail in the coffin IMO will be when the autonomous division try’s to change the amount of scholarships the non autonomous FBS conferences get” fewer “
If this dose in fact happen then I would think the best course of action the non autonomous conferences separate from the NCAA and make there own rules , like how many scholarships they want
just say’n

Actually, the final nail will be either increasing the number of scholarships for everyone or eliminating the requirement for transfers to sit a year.

The 5 autonomous conferences and TV powers can not breakaway 100% with out a big legal road block, but what is their plan is to continue to put the non autonomous conferences at a disadvantage position as possible to the point that the non autonomous conferences just get fed up and leave on their own, which Iam assuming would be legal if both agreed

This bias crap trash is so grossly pathetic

(11-23-2017 08:54 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  This bias crap trash is so grossly pathetic

Yet, this system was agreed to by all 10 FBS conferences, even the AAC and other 4 non autonomous conferences (G5). Whether you like it or not, y’all said yes to this system.

Everything is what it is. We haven't ran into a situation during the playoff era that a G5 team has been left out of anything they deserved. Could UCF be good enough? Possibly. After all of this stuff started on here I watched 4 of their games on youtube. They were bigger and faster than most of their opponents but they aren't as deep as the strong P5 teams. Auburn can go 3 deep on the lines and not really miss a beat from what I saw of UCF they don't have that kind of depth. I certainly think they are capable of playing some good football but I stick by my statements.

1. They don't have the resume. (They just don't period)
2. If a G5 team beats 2 contending P5 teams OOC and then goes undefeated they'll get in over some of the softer resume P5s. Like Washington Last season. Houston would have had a way better resume' and the eye test would have also been in their favor. Problem is they lost 3 regular season games AND lost their bowl game bad. (Yes, I know the coach left, but they still should have competed better)
3. If G5 fans think it's unfair for a G5 team to go on the road and play 2 top P5 teams, then they need to sit back and think about what the P5 teams in the playoff have had to do throughout the season. They would have played a minimum 4 or 5 road games against other P5 teams on the road and won 4 or 5 more P5 games at home. There can't be a double standard.

*** Look at recruiting classes, yes I KNOW some very talented players slip through the cracks, but not almost 70 teams worth.***

The typical P5 team is going to be better by far than the typical G5 team. Yes some TOP G5 teams can easily beat the bottom P5 teams but the Bottom P5 teams easily beat the bottom G5 teams.

I'll use Florida vs UAB as an example.

Sure it's UAB first season back.

They are 5-2 in C-USA and their 2 losses in that conference are by a combined 4 points.

UAB has beaten 3 Bowl teams in their Conference and it could be upwards of 5.

They have won 7 games and are in 2nd in their division based on record they are the 3rd best team in C-USA this season and they lost to 4 win 10th place Florida team by 29 points who has an interim head coach.

Sure you have 1 or 2 teams throughout the season in the G5 that are capable of competing and even winning. That doesn't mean every season the #1 G5 program should be in the playoff over 4 P5 teams that have gone through the grind of a P5 Conference season.

There are going to be upsets sometimes too like Troy over LSU. It happens and I enjoy a HUGE laugh at the expense of LSU fans and their program.

Yes programs like TCU and Boise State during their runs were very very good, but, those are 1 game scenarios. TCU coming off of a BCS win took a few seasons in the Big 12 to be a real contender. As good as they were throughout the season in the lower level conferences they could not compete well during the course of an entire season. Louisville was in a BCS conference for like 9 years before going to the ACC. They were 2nd to UCF (Their ONLY loss and it was by 3) their last season in the Big East/AAC and finished with a 5-3 record in the ACC and a 37-14 loss to Georgia in their bowl game. That season UCF had a special guy playing QB Blake Bortles (Who is still a starter in the NFL) and an awesome RB in Storm Johnson. They didn't destroy them, it was a solid 10 point win and well deserved.

Utah went through the SAME transition period.

1st Season Pac 12- 7-5 (4-5)
2nd Season Pac 12- 5-7 (3-6)
3rd Season Pac 12- 5-7 (2-7)

Did TCU and Utah just magically become avg and then bad teams? You know the answer to that. Sure, they could win in a 1 game scenario. I believe any team could beat anyone on the right day in the right situation. Over the course of a season though, those teams WERE NOT capable of competing for a top 25 ranking much less a chance for a BCS/NY6 day bowl or the National Championship or playoff...

Throw out all of your facts and their are MANY more that can go against you.

No one is taking away from what those teams were able to accomplish. It's just been proven time and time again that the P5 is better. Look at the P5 vs G5 records. Since you apparently keep targeting TOP P5 programs. See what the TOP P5 programs are against the G5.

I think given the chance UCF, Memphis, Boise State and a couple of others would be able to compete in P5 conferences. Not right away though and not for a conference championship. More like what Utah is doing.

The ONLY team I think that could eventually come in and compete for Conference Championships would be Houston but not at the level of say Bama. More at the level of a Texas A&M. They would have their moments 1-2 times every 10-12 years, but would be a solid middle of the pack to 8 win team several other times throughout those years. It's not as easy as you apparently think having to play the schedules we do.

Lastly, do you honestly think as an Auburn fan I enjoy watching Bama hoist SEC and National Championship trophies? I freaking hate it. I would much rather watch UCF or Houston win it all than watch Bama, LSU, or Georgia win it all. I would actually pray for the upset.

(11-23-2017 09:28 PM)leofrog Wrote:  

(11-23-2017 08:54 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  This bias crap trash is so grossly pathetic

Yet, this system was agreed to by all 10 FBS conferences, even the AAC and other 4 non autonomous conferences (G5). Whether you like it or not, y’all said yes to this system.

Were you at the table when this crappy trash negotiations took place???