(01-02-2018 11:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-02-2018 05:25 PM)otown Wrote:  

(01-02-2018 04:49 PM)bullet Wrote:  Its a shame UCF doesn't get a shot, but its just not that close a call.

Except, Wisconsin was in the conversation all up until they lost their CCG. In fact, with the atrocious SOS that you eloquently described, they were top 4. Now the CFP criteria is supposedly doing new rankings in a vacuum every week, and they are not supposed to take in consideration future games played. So please explain to me Wisconsin on week 14 at #4? Meanwhile, UCF finishes #12 even after their CCG still undefeated.

Remember, it's not just human voters who had UCF lower. E.g., Massey Composite had Wisconsin at #6 even after they lost their CCG to Ohio State while UCF was ranked #9.

Wisconsin's schedule was weak, by P5 standards. But it was still ranked around #50. UCF's was ranked in the 80s, much weaker.

UCF fans whining and gnashing about the committee have to remember that not just the committee but *everyone* says that UCF didn't belong in the playoffs. None of the humans (AP, Coaches polls, CFP committee) or computer composites (Massey, Sagarin). The simulated BCS rankings had UCF at #9. They differed in some ways, but ALL of them had UCF well outside the top four.

And they made a mistake. We are not just talking about top 4. They were 12. Alabama only lost to Auburn. Georgia only lost to Auburn. Auburn lost to UCF. UCF lost to nobody. That was a team at 12? Even at an 8 team invitational, UCF was 12. Nope, this system is a rigged invitational. There is no chance to prove it on the field, even as a bottom seed playing the top seed.

The weak East conference of the NBA still get the same amount of teams as the west in the playoffs. Weak NFL division winners still make it to the playoff despite playing weaker schedules. Everyone gets a fair shot to prove it on the field.

As far as Wisconsin, their SOS was worse than UCFs even after playing Ohio state and Miami via RPI measurements. It was also worse prior to the bowl games, and was worse prior to the CGG. Yes, just another metric......... but they were in the top 4 and UCF was 14 during that last week.

(01-03-2018 05:09 AM)otown Wrote:  

(01-02-2018 11:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-02-2018 05:25 PM)otown Wrote:  

(01-02-2018 04:49 PM)bullet Wrote:  Its a shame UCF doesn't get a shot, but its just not that close a call.

Except, Wisconsin was in the conversation all up until they lost their CCG. In fact, with the atrocious SOS that you eloquently described, they were top 4. Now the CFP criteria is supposedly doing new rankings in a vacuum every week, and they are not supposed to take in consideration future games played. So please explain to me Wisconsin on week 14 at #4? Meanwhile, UCF finishes #12 even after their CCG still undefeated.

Remember, it's not just human voters who had UCF lower. E.g., Massey Composite had Wisconsin at #6 even after they lost their CCG to Ohio State while UCF was ranked #9.

Wisconsin's schedule was weak, by P5 standards. But it was still ranked around #50. UCF's was ranked in the 80s, much weaker.

UCF fans whining and gnashing about the committee have to remember that not just the committee but *everyone* says that UCF didn't belong in the playoffs. None of the humans (AP, Coaches polls, CFP committee) or computer composites (Massey, Sagarin). The simulated BCS rankings had UCF at #9. They differed in some ways, but ALL of them had UCF well outside the top four.

And they made a mistake. We are not just talking about top 4. They were 12. Alabama only lost to Auburn. Georgia only lost to Auburn. Auburn lost to UCF. UCF lost to nobody. That was a team at 12? Even at an 8 team invitational, UCF was 12. Nope, this system is a rigged invitational. There is no chance to prove it on the field, even as a bottom seed playing the top seed.

The weak East conference of the NBA still get the same amount of teams as the west in the playoffs. Weak NFL division winners still make it to the playoff despite playing weaker schedules. Everyone gets a fair shot to prove it on the field.

First, UCF beating Auburn by no means proves that UCF belonged in the playoffs. It's not like UCF beat #1 Clemson the other day. They beat #7 Auburn. You like to talk about who Auburn beat, but forget that this was a 3-loss team we're talking about. A team that lost to Clemson, lost to LSU, and was crushed by Georgia in the SEC title game. Beating Auburn, a team everyone agrees didn't belong in the playoffs, a team that now has FOUR losses on the season, doesn't show that UCF did belong.

You still would have to explain who among the 4 that did get in UCF should have replaced, and I don't think anyone can do that.

Second, concerning the structure of the playoffs, many would argue that those other sports you cite give too many teams a chance to win. E.g., the other day, the Tennessee Titans were 8-7 going in to their last game. They won to finish 9-7 and thanks to some other teams losing their last games are now in the playoffs. Is a team that went 9-7 really worthy of the playoffs? In the NBA teams routinely go barely above .500, finish with 44-38 records and the like, and yet make the playoffs. Baseball teams lose 75 games and make the playoffs.

One thing many do like about college football is that you do have to have a great season -not just in terms of overall wins but also quality of wins- to contend for the national title. Maybe 8 or 16 teams would be a better playoff format, would strike the best balance between making sure deserving teams are in while also making sure undeserving teams don't get a second chance they don't deserve. But in the current 4-team playoff it's hard to argue UCF belonged, they just didn't.

(01-03-2018 09:07 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 05:09 AM)otown Wrote:  

(01-02-2018 11:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-02-2018 05:25 PM)otown Wrote:  

(01-02-2018 04:49 PM)bullet Wrote:  Its a shame UCF doesn't get a shot, but its just not that close a call.

Except, Wisconsin was in the conversation all up until they lost their CCG. In fact, with the atrocious SOS that you eloquently described, they were top 4. Now the CFP criteria is supposedly doing new rankings in a vacuum every week, and they are not supposed to take in consideration future games played. So please explain to me Wisconsin on week 14 at #4? Meanwhile, UCF finishes #12 even after their CCG still undefeated.

Remember, it's not just human voters who had UCF lower. E.g., Massey Composite had Wisconsin at #6 even after they lost their CCG to Ohio State while UCF was ranked #9.

Wisconsin's schedule was weak, by P5 standards. But it was still ranked around #50. UCF's was ranked in the 80s, much weaker.

UCF fans whining and gnashing about the committee have to remember that not just the committee but *everyone* says that UCF didn't belong in the playoffs. None of the humans (AP, Coaches polls, CFP committee) or computer composites (Massey, Sagarin). The simulated BCS rankings had UCF at #9. They differed in some ways, but ALL of them had UCF well outside the top four.

And they made a mistake. We are not just talking about top 4. They were 12. Alabama only lost to Auburn. Georgia only lost to Auburn. Auburn lost to UCF. UCF lost to nobody. That was a team at 12? Even at an 8 team invitational, UCF was 12. Nope, this system is a rigged invitational. There is no chance to prove it on the field, even as a bottom seed playing the top seed.

The weak East conference of the NBA still get the same amount of teams as the west in the playoffs. Weak NFL division winners still make it to the playoff despite playing weaker schedules. Everyone gets a fair shot to prove it on the field.

First, UCF beating Auburn by no means proves that UCF belonged in the playoffs. It's not like UCF beat #1 Clemson the other day. They beat #7 Auburn. You like to talk about who Auburn beat, but forget that this was a 3-loss team we're talking about. A team that lost to Clemson, lost to LSU, and was crushed by Georgia in the SEC title game. Beating Auburn, a team everyone agrees didn't belong in the playoffs, a team that now has FOUR losses on the season, doesn't show that UCF did belong.

You still would have to explain who among the 4 that did get in UCF should have replaced, and I don't think anyone can do that.

Second, concerning the structure of the playoffs, many would argue that those other sports you cite give too many teams a chance to win. E.g., the other day, the Tennessee Titans were 8-7 going in to their last game. They won to finish 9-7 and thanks to some other teams losing their last games are now in the playoffs. Is a team that went 9-7 really worthy of the playoffs? In the NBA teams routinely go barely above .500, finish with 44-38 records and the like, and yet make the playoffs. Baseball teams lose 75 games and make the playoffs.

One thing many do like about college football is that you do have to have a great season -not just in terms of overall wins but also quality of wins- to contend for the national title. Maybe 8 or 16 teams would be a better playoff format, would strike the best balance between making sure deserving teams are in while also making sure undeserving teams don't get a second chance they don't deserve. But in the current 4-team playoff it's hard to argue UCF belonged, they just didn't.

I think you missed my main point. UCF didn't just miss out of being included in the playoffs. They missed it by a mile. Ranked 12. The system needs to change. If they were ranked 5, 6, 7..... I think it would be easier to swallow. Not when they were marooned at 12.

As far as the NFL and NBA, I think those "many" are in the minuscule minority. There is absolutely NO movement or serious push that wants to change the current system in all the other leagues. The overwhelming consensus is that those systems work the best. To say otherwise is foolish.

(01-03-2018 09:20 AM)otown Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 09:07 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 05:09 AM)otown Wrote:  

(01-02-2018 11:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-02-2018 05:25 PM)otown Wrote:  Except, Wisconsin was in the conversation all up until they lost their CCG. In fact, with the atrocious SOS that you eloquently described, they were top 4. Now the CFP criteria is supposedly doing new rankings in a vacuum every week, and they are not supposed to take in consideration future games played. So please explain to me Wisconsin on week 14 at #4? Meanwhile, UCF finishes #12 even after their CCG still undefeated.

Remember, it's not just human voters who had UCF lower. E.g., Massey Composite had Wisconsin at #6 even after they lost their CCG to Ohio State while UCF was ranked #9.

Wisconsin's schedule was weak, by P5 standards. But it was still ranked around #50. UCF's was ranked in the 80s, much weaker.

UCF fans whining and gnashing about the committee have to remember that not just the committee but *everyone* says that UCF didn't belong in the playoffs. None of the humans (AP, Coaches polls, CFP committee) or computer composites (Massey, Sagarin). The simulated BCS rankings had UCF at #9. They differed in some ways, but ALL of them had UCF well outside the top four.

And they made a mistake. We are not just talking about top 4. They were 12. Alabama only lost to Auburn. Georgia only lost to Auburn. Auburn lost to UCF. UCF lost to nobody. That was a team at 12? Even at an 8 team invitational, UCF was 12. Nope, this system is a rigged invitational. There is no chance to prove it on the field, even as a bottom seed playing the top seed.

The weak East conference of the NBA still get the same amount of teams as the west in the playoffs. Weak NFL division winners still make it to the playoff despite playing weaker schedules. Everyone gets a fair shot to prove it on the field.

First, UCF beating Auburn by no means proves that UCF belonged in the playoffs. It's not like UCF beat #1 Clemson the other day. They beat #7 Auburn. You like to talk about who Auburn beat, but forget that this was a 3-loss team we're talking about. A team that lost to Clemson, lost to LSU, and was crushed by Georgia in the SEC title game. Beating Auburn, a team everyone agrees didn't belong in the playoffs, a team that now has FOUR losses on the season, doesn't show that UCF did belong.

You still would have to explain who among the 4 that did get in UCF should have replaced, and I don't think anyone can do that.

Second, concerning the structure of the playoffs, many would argue that those other sports you cite give too many teams a chance to win. E.g., the other day, the Tennessee Titans were 8-7 going in to their last game. They won to finish 9-7 and thanks to some other teams losing their last games are now in the playoffs. Is a team that went 9-7 really worthy of the playoffs? In the NBA teams routinely go barely above .500, finish with 44-38 records and the like, and yet make the playoffs. Baseball teams lose 75 games and make the playoffs.

One thing many do like about college football is that you do have to have a great season -not just in terms of overall wins but also quality of wins- to contend for the national title. Maybe 8 or 16 teams would be a better playoff format, would strike the best balance between making sure deserving teams are in while also making sure undeserving teams don't get a second chance they don't deserve. But in the current 4-team playoff it's hard to argue UCF belonged, they just didn't.

I think you missed my main point. UCF didn't just miss out of being included in the playoffs. They missed it by a mile. Ranked 12. The system needs to change. If they were ranked 5, 6, 7..... I think it would be easier to swallow. Not when they were marooned at 12.

As far as the NFL and NBA, I think those "many" are in the minuscule minority. There is absolutely NO movement or serious push that wants to change the current system in all the other leagues. The overwhelming consensus is that those systems work the best. To say otherwise is foolish.

There are many who do think that too many teams make the playoffs in those leagues. But few complain because (a) even though conceptually i know a team of mine that goes 9-7 has already proven it doesn't belong, i still want to see them make the playoffs anyway because well, I'm a fan and want them to! and (b) they understand that money drives playoff expansion so there's no use arguing about it. Sports leagues exist to make money so will have too-big playoff systems if that makes more money. But conceptually, it's silly that 9-7 football teams, 44-38 NBA teams, etc. make the playoffs.

Also, as I've explained to Attackcoog many times, it's not a big deal that UCF was ranked #12 instead of say #9 like they deserved. If the issue is "does a team deserve to make a 4-team playoffs", it doesn't matter if they are 8 or 12 or 22 or 110, in all four cases the answer is "no".

On StubHub, the cheapest ticket is $1800, so somebody is interested:

https://www.stubhub.com/georgia-bulldogs...rmer/6987/

(01-03-2018 09:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  On StubHub, the cheapest ticket is $1800, so somebody is interested:

https://www.stubhub.com/georgia-bulldogs...rmer/6987/

Thanks qv, but I think I will avoid the Atlanta traffic, save the 6+ hours driving time to get there and then back before work the next day and just watch it on my TV. The bathroom breaks are easier, the food is cheaper and my recliner is more comfy. I think I will tell my wife that I just saved us at least $4000.

(01-03-2018 09:28 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 09:20 AM)otown Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 09:07 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 05:09 AM)otown Wrote:  

(01-02-2018 11:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Remember, it's not just human voters who had UCF lower. E.g., Massey Composite had Wisconsin at #6 even after they lost their CCG to Ohio State while UCF was ranked #9.

Wisconsin's schedule was weak, by P5 standards. But it was still ranked around #50. UCF's was ranked in the 80s, much weaker.

UCF fans whining and gnashing about the committee have to remember that not just the committee but *everyone* says that UCF didn't belong in the playoffs. None of the humans (AP, Coaches polls, CFP committee) or computer composites (Massey, Sagarin). The simulated BCS rankings had UCF at #9. They differed in some ways, but ALL of them had UCF well outside the top four.

And they made a mistake. We are not just talking about top 4. They were 12. Alabama only lost to Auburn. Georgia only lost to Auburn. Auburn lost to UCF. UCF lost to nobody. That was a team at 12? Even at an 8 team invitational, UCF was 12. Nope, this system is a rigged invitational. There is no chance to prove it on the field, even as a bottom seed playing the top seed.

The weak East conference of the NBA still get the same amount of teams as the west in the playoffs. Weak NFL division winners still make it to the playoff despite playing weaker schedules. Everyone gets a fair shot to prove it on the field.

First, UCF beating Auburn by no means proves that UCF belonged in the playoffs. It's not like UCF beat #1 Clemson the other day. They beat #7 Auburn. You like to talk about who Auburn beat, but forget that this was a 3-loss team we're talking about. A team that lost to Clemson, lost to LSU, and was crushed by Georgia in the SEC title game. Beating Auburn, a team everyone agrees didn't belong in the playoffs, a team that now has FOUR losses on the season, doesn't show that UCF did belong.

You still would have to explain who among the 4 that did get in UCF should have replaced, and I don't think anyone can do that.

Second, concerning the structure of the playoffs, many would argue that those other sports you cite give too many teams a chance to win. E.g., the other day, the Tennessee Titans were 8-7 going in to their last game. They won to finish 9-7 and thanks to some other teams losing their last games are now in the playoffs. Is a team that went 9-7 really worthy of the playoffs? In the NBA teams routinely go barely above .500, finish with 44-38 records and the like, and yet make the playoffs. Baseball teams lose 75 games and make the playoffs.

One thing many do like about college football is that you do have to have a great season -not just in terms of overall wins but also quality of wins- to contend for the national title. Maybe 8 or 16 teams would be a better playoff format, would strike the best balance between making sure deserving teams are in while also making sure undeserving teams don't get a second chance they don't deserve. But in the current 4-team playoff it's hard to argue UCF belonged, they just didn't.

I think you missed my main point. UCF didn't just miss out of being included in the playoffs. They missed it by a mile. Ranked 12. The system needs to change. If they were ranked 5, 6, 7..... I think it would be easier to swallow. Not when they were marooned at 12.

As far as the NFL and NBA, I think those "many" are in the minuscule minority. There is absolutely NO movement or serious push that wants to change the current system in all the other leagues. The overwhelming consensus is that those systems work the best. To say otherwise is foolish.

There are many who do think that too many teams make the playoffs in those leagues. But few complain because (a) even though conceptually i know a team of mine that goes 9-7 has already proven it doesn't belong, i still want to see them make the playoffs anyway because well, I'm a fan and want them to! and (b) they understand that money drives playoff expansion so there's no use arguing about it. Sports leagues exist to make money so will have too-big playoff systems if that makes more money. But conceptually, it's silly that 9-7 football teams, 44-38 NBA teams, etc. make the playoffs.

Also, as I've explained to Attackcoog many times, it's not a big deal that UCF was ranked #12 instead of say #9 like they deserved. If the issue is "does a team deserve to make a 4-team playoffs", it doesn't matter if they are 8 or 12 or 22 or 110, in all four cases the answer is "no".

It does make a big difference. It shows the committee's cards. If UCF was ranked 7-9, hypothetically next time a AAC team runs the table, including having wins against 2 strong P5 teams OOC, along with a decent conference slate, the justification for that "better" schedule will be to rank them at 5-7 instead of 12. It simply shows that there is simply no conceivable way for a team from the AAC to get in. I happen to believe that had Houston gone undefeated last year, they would have been left out. I draw that conclusion simply based off UCF being marooned all the ways down at 12.

As far as all the other sports, its seems to work very well. NCAAF should be no different. They need an expansion. the media are starting to pick up on it. P5 autobids, 2 at large, and G5 winner if ranked top 15.

Right, but Auburn was at what spot in the polls going into their CCG? And would have been where if they beat UGA in the CCG?

We talk like Auburn really didn't belong because they had three losses after everything was done. Well, they still had two losses before the CCG, and the one to LSU was questionable in of itself. It wouldn't have mattered. All the systems cared about was making sure the SEC West champ was represented if it could win the conference outright. If Wisconsin had no claim at #4 with a weak SOS, why is a two-loss Auburn team at, what was it...#2?!

And, even with one less game than it should have had, UCF still played and beat more bowl eligible teams than the rest of the left-behinds (and the same number as Alabama if you count the self-punished Ole Miss game). If you want to say UCF's schedule was weak...I don't know how they don't rank higher when compared to the rest.

(01-03-2018 09:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  On StubHub, the cheapest ticket is $1800, so somebody is interested:

https://www.stubhub.com/georgia-bulldogs...rmer/6987/

Are you kidding? The game is in Atlanta with the home team playing against their very close neighbor to the west. It's an all SEC game right dead smack in the middle of SEC country.

A more realistic approach to this exercise is to look at the national ratings of the game. All the NY6 games and playoff games had a bump in the ratings. Lets see if this trend continues for the championship game between two teams located 250 miles apart.

I might. Not especially excited by it. Not going to make plans around it.

(01-03-2018 05:09 AM)otown Wrote:  

(01-02-2018 11:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-02-2018 05:25 PM)otown Wrote:  

(01-02-2018 04:49 PM)bullet Wrote:  Its a shame UCF doesn't get a shot, but its just not that close a call.

Except, Wisconsin was in the conversation all up until they lost their CCG. In fact, with the atrocious SOS that you eloquently described, they were top 4. Now the CFP criteria is supposedly doing new rankings in a vacuum every week, and they are not supposed to take in consideration future games played. So please explain to me Wisconsin on week 14 at #4? Meanwhile, UCF finishes #12 even after their CCG still undefeated.

Remember, it's not just human voters who had UCF lower. E.g., Massey Composite had Wisconsin at #6 even after they lost their CCG to Ohio State while UCF was ranked #9.

Wisconsin's schedule was weak, by P5 standards. But it was still ranked around #50. UCF's was ranked in the 80s, much weaker.

UCF fans whining and gnashing about the committee have to remember that not just the committee but *everyone* says that UCF didn't belong in the playoffs. None of the humans (AP, Coaches polls, CFP committee) or computer composites (Massey, Sagarin). The simulated BCS rankings had UCF at #9. They differed in some ways, but ALL of them had UCF well outside the top four.

And they made a mistake. We are not just talking about top 4. They were 12. Alabama only lost to Auburn. Georgia only lost to Auburn. Auburn lost to UCF. UCF lost to nobody. That was a team at 12? Even at an 8 team invitational, UCF was 12. Nope, this system is a rigged invitational. There is no chance to prove it on the field, even as a bottom seed playing the top seed.

The weak East conference of the NBA still get the same amount of teams as the west in the playoffs. Weak NFL division winners still make it to the playoff despite playing weaker schedules. Everyone gets a fair shot to prove it on the field.

As far as Wisconsin, their SOS was worse than UCFs even after playing Ohio state and Miami via RPI measurements. It was also worse prior to the bowl games, and was worse prior to the CGG. Yes, just another metric......... but they were in the top 4 and UCF was 14 during that last week.

So move your football team to the NBA East if you like their playoff set up. Or go set up your own and see how far you get.

Yep Clemson with their quality loss to cuse... oh never mind.

I want Ala to win, so they can explain how #3 sec school with a loss to Au is national champ over a #1 AAC school who is undefeated and beat the team that made Ala #3. is national champ.
I love the circular logic used to explain the illogical..

(01-03-2018 10:17 AM)otown Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 09:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  On StubHub, the cheapest ticket is $1800, so somebody is interested:

https://www.stubhub.com/georgia-bulldogs...rmer/6987/

Are you kidding? The game is in Atlanta with the home team playing against their very close neighbor to the west. It's an all SEC game right dead smack in the middle of SEC country.

A more realistic approach to this exercise is to look at the national ratings of the game. All the NY6 games and playoff games had a bump in the ratings. Lets see if this trend continues for the championship game between two teams located 250 miles apart.

Well, we won't expect the same bump for the title game, because the other NY6 got the bump because they weren't on New Year's Eve like they were last year, and that doesn't apply to the title game.

And $1800 a ticket is $1800 a ticket. It surely means lots are interested, though of course the national TV ratings will matter as well. I mean, IIRC, for USF vs UCF a month or so ago, you could get in to the game for $40, even though it was two teams 75 miles apart, etc.

(01-03-2018 09:54 AM)otown Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 09:28 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Also, as I've explained to Attackcoog many times, it's not a big deal that UCF was ranked #12 instead of say #9 like they deserved. If the issue is "does a team deserve to make a 4-team playoffs", it doesn't matter if they are 8 or 12 or 22 or 110, in all four cases the answer is "no".

It does make a big difference. It shows the committee's cards. If UCF was ranked 7-9, hypothetically next time a AAC team runs the table, including having wins against 2 strong P5 teams OOC, along with a decent conference slate, the justification for that "better" schedule will be to rank them at 5-7 instead of 12. It simply shows that there is simply no conceivable way for a team from the AAC to get in. I happen to believe that had Houston gone undefeated last year, they would have been left out. I draw that conclusion simply based off UCF being marooned all the ways down at 12.

Disagree. I think had Houston gone unbeaten last year, they would have made the playoffs over #4 Washington. We'll never know but that seems clear to me.

Yes, if a team is ranked #6 and they should be #4, then sure, that matters, because it is the difference between making and not making the playoffs. But that wasn't UCF's situation this year.

And more specifically: Many AAC types pointed to the pattern that the CFP "ceilinged" UCF at around #13 in the rankings even as they kept winning and teams ahead kept losing. They acted like this revealed the Big CFP Conspiracy, the CFP Showing Its True Anti-G5 Bias and the like.

Actually, it was rational. On one hand, if you have a team that is say 8-0 or 9-0 with a soft schedule, yes, you want to acknowledge that by having them in the rankings. But otoh, you also realize that no, you don't want to move them up too high, such that if they keep winning they will advance in to playoff position by attrition, as teams ahead playing tougher games lose. So yes, you carefully control their ranking, letting them inch up, but not too much. If the team we're talking about is UCF at #13, and say #8, 8-1 Notre Dame loses to a very tough team, you drop ND 4 spots so they stay ahead of UCF. Or if a two-loss team that has played a tough schedule and is two spots behind UCF wins a tough game while UCF wins against another patsy, you maybe leap-frog that team ahead of them. So in the end, UCF keeps moving up, but inching up, so they never get in playoff range. You give that team a two-steps forward, one step back kind of progression to stall them.

There's nothing insidious or biased about it, it is simply the rational way to handle an unbeaten, but unproven team.

(01-03-2018 10:37 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 10:17 AM)otown Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 09:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  On StubHub, the cheapest ticket is $1800, so somebody is interested:

https://www.stubhub.com/georgia-bulldogs...rmer/6987/

Are you kidding? The game is in Atlanta with the home team playing against their very close neighbor to the west. It's an all SEC game right dead smack in the middle of SEC country.

A more realistic approach to this exercise is to look at the national ratings of the game. All the NY6 games and playoff games had a bump in the ratings. Lets see if this trend continues for the championship game between two teams located 250 miles apart.

Well, we won't expect the same bump for the title game, because the other NY6 got the bump because they weren't on New Year's Eve like they were last year, and that doesn't apply to the title game.

And $1800 a ticket is $1800 a ticket. It surely means lots are interested, though of course the national TV ratings will matter as well. I mean, IIRC, for USF vs UCF a month or so ago, you could get in to the game for $40, even though it was two teams 75 miles apart, etc.

Yea, once again..... the game is in Atlanta. Put that game in Dallas, LA, Detroit, or anywhere else..... and the ticket prices will be comparable to other years. Did you just really compare a conference AAC game to the CFP championship? Dude, you are trying too hard.

(01-03-2018 10:50 AM)otown Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 10:37 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 10:17 AM)otown Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 09:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  On StubHub, the cheapest ticket is $1800, so somebody is interested:

https://www.stubhub.com/georgia-bulldogs...rmer/6987/

Are you kidding? The game is in Atlanta with the home team playing against their very close neighbor to the west. It's an all SEC game right dead smack in the middle of SEC country.

A more realistic approach to this exercise is to look at the national ratings of the game. All the NY6 games and playoff games had a bump in the ratings. Lets see if this trend continues for the championship game between two teams located 250 miles apart.

Well, we won't expect the same bump for the title game, because the other NY6 got the bump because they weren't on New Year's Eve like they were last year, and that doesn't apply to the title game.

And $1800 a ticket is $1800 a ticket. It surely means lots are interested, though of course the national TV ratings will matter as well. I mean, IIRC, for USF vs UCF a month or so ago, you could get in to the game for $40, even though it was two teams 75 miles apart, etc.

Yea, once again..... the game is in Atlanta. Put that game in Dallas, LA, Detroit, or anywhere else..... and the ticket prices will be comparable to other years. Did you just really compare a conference AAC game to the CFP championship? Dude, you are trying too hard.

The comparison was along the lines of what you emphasized - two SEC teams playing in the heart of SEC country and only 200 miles apart. My point was that while yes, those things can matter, they don't explain $1800 a ticket.

And no, a title game doesn't necessarily mean high prices. I went to the first BCS title game, FSU vs Tennessee in 1998, two big name powers, and i got in by paying a guy with a big fan of tickets $12 about a half hour before the game outside the stadium. Probably could have got in for $10 if i wanted to bargain.

(01-03-2018 10:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 09:54 AM)otown Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 09:28 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Also, as I've explained to Attackcoog many times, it's not a big deal that UCF was ranked #12 instead of say #9 like they deserved. If the issue is "does a team deserve to make a 4-team playoffs", it doesn't matter if they are 8 or 12 or 22 or 110, in all four cases the answer is "no".

It does make a big difference. It shows the committee's cards. If UCF was ranked 7-9, hypothetically next time a AAC team runs the table, including having wins against 2 strong P5 teams OOC, along with a decent conference slate, the justification for that "better" schedule will be to rank them at 5-7 instead of 12. It simply shows that there is simply no conceivable way for a team from the AAC to get in. I happen to believe that had Houston gone undefeated last year, they would have been left out. I draw that conclusion simply based off UCF being marooned all the ways down at 12.

Disagree. I think had Houston gone unbeaten last year, they would have made the playoffs over #4 Washington. We'll never know but that seems clear to me.

Yes, if a team is ranked #6 and they should be #4, then sure, that matters, because it is the difference between making and not making the playoffs. But that wasn't UCF's situation this year.

And more specifically: Many AAC types pointed to the pattern that the CFP "ceilinged" UCF at around #13 in the rankings even as they kept winning and teams ahead kept losing. They acted like this revealed the Big CFP Conspiracy, the CFP Showing Its True Anti-G5 Bias and the like.

Actually, it was rational. On one hand, if you have a team that is say 8-0 or 9-0 with a soft schedule, yes, you want to acknowledge that by having them in the rankings. But otoh, you also realize that no, you don't want to move them up too high, such that if they keep winning they will advance in to playoff position by attrition, as teams ahead playing tougher games lose. So yes, you carefully control their ranking, letting them inch up, but not too much. If the team we're talking about is UCF at #13, and say #8, 8-1 Notre Dame loses to a very tough team, you drop ND 4 spots so they stay ahead of UCF. Or if a two-loss team that has played a tough schedule and is two spots behind UCF wins a tough game while UCF wins against another patsy, you maybe leap-frog that team ahead of them. So in the end, UCF keeps moving up, but inching up, so they never get in playoff range. You give that team a two-steps forward, one step back kind of progression to stall them.

There's nothing insidious or biased about it, it is simply the rational way to handle an unbeaten, but unproven team.

It was the nations only unbeaten and they refused to place them in the top 10. The systems a joke amd frankly, Ive lost interest at this point. If there is nothing else on, Ill watch it--otherwise, now that its clear the G5 is not included in the CFP, the outcome is of no more interest to me than the Canadian Grey Cup...casual at best. Ive moved on to pro football where a champ is chosen on the field and there arent any paid off out of work ice skating judges picking the winners.

(01-03-2018 10:58 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  [quote='quo vadis' pid='14953913' dateline='1514994519']
It was the nations only unbeaten and they refused to place them in the top 10. The systems a joke amd frankly, Ive lost interest at this point. If there is nothing else on, Ill watch it--otherwise, now that its clear the G5 is not included in the CFP, the outcome is of no more interest to me than the Canadian Grey Cup...casual at best. Ive moved on to pro football where a champ is chosen on the field and there arent any paid off out of work ice skating judges picking the winners.

Personally, as much as i 'hate' UCF, i thought they deserved to be around #9 or #10 in the final rankings not #12. So i agree the CFP under-ranked them. But they aren't the only teams I thought were under-ranked. I had Notre Dame at #11, not #14, and that was consequential as in their case that was the difference between being in an NY6 and not. There were a few others.

Not a big deal, as it didn't cost UCF anything they deserved. They deserved an NY6 spot, and that's what they got.

Football season is done, and Undefeated National champs in place, will go for a good rerun on tv. Maybe a replay of National championship peach bowl.:0)

(01-03-2018 11:09 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  Football season is done, and Undefeated National champs in place, will go for a good rerun on tv. Maybe a replay of National championship peach bowl.:0)

Nobody in their right mind would call UCF 'national champs' because they beat a 3-loss Auburn team that nobody thought even belonged in the playoffs.