Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
CFP selection committee defends leaving out undefeated UCF
Author Message
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 26,807
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 594
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #61
RE: CFP selection committee defends leaving out undefeated UCF
(01-04-2018 11:54 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 10:39 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 10:35 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  Well there is the losers bracket playoffs while the only team in the country not in losers bracket is now claiming championship...sorry in sports...1loss<0

Actually no, as there are many examples of teams winning championships with more losses than other teams. A focus on losses alone is idiotic, as it ignores who you played.

There are also many many examples of teams declaring themselves national cahmpions---many of them are not even undefeated teams.

IIRC, all of those examples occurred when teams either played no bowl games or one. It's entirely another matter to claim a title when we do have a playoff system that requires a team to win two games against top-4 calibre teams. Had UCF had this season 40 years ago, then they could make a fanciful title claim even though no wire service votes them #1. Nobody would pay attention to it, the AP and UPI were the only widely-regarded title granters, but still they claim it. The playoffs eliminate all grounds for these kinds of frivolous claims.

Undefeated means little unless we know who a team played. Transitivity means even less - Auburn lost three games before losing to UCF, nobody, not even Auburn fans said they were playoff worthy, so how on earth does beating a non-playoff-worthy team mean you are national champs over teams that won actual playoff games?

It's astonishing that we have to keep going over this. 07-coffee3
(This post was last modified: 01-04-2018 12:18 PM by quo vadis.)
01-04-2018 12:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
panama Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 24,157
Joined: May 2009
Reputation: 337
I Root For: Georgia STATE
Location: East Atlanta Village
Post: #62
RE: CFP selection committee defends leaving out undefeated UCF
(01-03-2018 11:12 PM)wleakr Wrote:  @EvilV: Is it dumb because you didn't understand the analogy?

Cuz it actually makes a lot of sense.

A LOT!
01-04-2018 12:12 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 24,933
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1011
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #63
RE: CFP selection committee defends leaving out undefeated UCF
(01-04-2018 12:07 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 11:01 AM)otown Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 10:53 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 10:47 AM)otown Wrote:  Too many people are looking at this the wrong way. The whole champion designation and even the Disney parade on Sunday is mainly about getting the discussion in the mainstream about the plight of the G5 being underranked, and expanding the discusion about making changes to the playoff, mainly expanding it.

I have to say that it's working, because what should be talk about the Georgia and Alabama this week is being overtaken on message boards and the media by UCF talk.

The funny thing is that the P5 should be more upset at Auburn. It's their fault that they unleashed all this. If they only lived up to the P5 hype, this cat would have never been out of the bag.

This.

I do get a kick though out of reading P5 fanboys. In basketball, when an underdog makes a run in the tournament everyone talks about how great it is and how it makes the sport special. In football the same people say "You sons of ******* have no business to claim anything. There needs to be more legislation to separate the haves and the have-nots".

It's amazing how college football is the only sport where P5 fans actually think that making the playoffs is equivalent of winning a championship, hense why they feel it being such a privalege to make the playoffs and should not be afforded to anyone else. In 1 year, nobody cares who was 2 through 4, just as nobody would care who was 2 through 8.

Seriously, every other sport does not have this weird infatuation with a small invitational that limits having a true playoff with proving it on the field. It's so strange that many P5 fans love this. Hell, I'm a SEC and Gator fan and I even think this is rediculous.

The small invitational is due in large part to the history of the FBS, wherein the expansion of the regular season made it more difficult to expand the postseason. The bowls also of course interfere with a larger organized playoff system, unlike in FCS. This is of course not to say that an 8-team CFP would be impossible, but a lot of inertia is going against it.

The top level of football never had a post season designed to crown a champion. In fact, its only recently that it ever even had a multi-game system for designating a champ---before it was only one game.
01-04-2018 12:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,012
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 119
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #64
RE: CFP selection committee defends leaving out undefeated UCF
The playoffs committee should be people who have no connections to any of the schools, nor connections to the conferences. Lou Holtz, Joe Paterno and other legendary coaches would argue that UCF is the best team on the field. Since Joe Pa is not around anymore, Lou Holtz is and he argued for unbeaten Boise State in the past to be in the National Championships. He argued the likes of Kansas, Vanderbilt, Kentucky and so forth are equals to schools like UNLV, U.Conn., Tulsa, Eastern Michigan, San Jose State and some others. Conferences like MWC, WAC, MAC, AAC/Big East, C-USA were more equals to the P5 in play. Now it is just AAC, MWC and MAC who have been beating P5 teams, and their teams at times are tough top to bottom. I know, the first few games like UNLV and San Jose State, they lose big, but they get better at the end of the season.
01-04-2018 12:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 24,933
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1011
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #65
RE: CFP selection committee defends leaving out undefeated UCF
(01-04-2018 12:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 11:54 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 10:39 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 10:35 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  Well there is the losers bracket playoffs while the only team in the country not in losers bracket is now claiming championship...sorry in sports...1loss<0

Actually no, as there are many examples of teams winning championships with more losses than other teams. A focus on losses alone is idiotic, as it ignores who you played.

There are also many many examples of teams declaring themselves national cahmpions---many of them are not even undefeated teams.

IIRC, all of those examples occurred when teams either played no bowl games or one. It's entirely another matter to claim a title when we do have a playoff system that requires a team to win two games against top-4 calibre teams. Had UCF had this season 40 years ago, then they could make a fanciful title claim even though no wire service votes them #1. Nobody would pay attention to it, the AP and UPI were the only widely-regarded title granters, but still they claim it. The playoffs eliminate all grounds for these kinds of frivolous claims.

Undefeated means little unless we know who a team played. Transitivity means even less - Auburn lost three games before losing to UCF, nobody, not even Auburn fans said they were playoff worthy, so how on earth does beating a non-playoff-worthy team mean you are national champs over teams that won actual playoff games?

It's astonishing that we have to keep going over this. 07-coffee3

Actually--we have a "playoff system" that by one of the P5 commissioners own admission--eliminates the G5 from participation. Thats the exactly the type of environment that breeds split championships. Ignore the UCF NC or dont. Its going to to happen. If the the little CFP Invitational doesnt like it--then they should improve their product. This is how things evolve.
(This post was last modified: 01-04-2018 12:27 PM by Attackcoog.)
01-04-2018 12:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
panama Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 24,157
Joined: May 2009
Reputation: 337
I Root For: Georgia STATE
Location: East Atlanta Village
Post: #66
RE: CFP selection committee defends leaving out undefeated UCF
(01-04-2018 12:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 12:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 11:54 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 10:39 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 10:35 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  Well there is the losers bracket playoffs while the only team in the country not in losers bracket is now claiming championship...sorry in sports...1loss<0

Actually no, as there are many examples of teams winning championships with more losses than other teams. A focus on losses alone is idiotic, as it ignores who you played.

There are also many many examples of teams declaring themselves national cahmpions---many of them are not even undefeated teams.

IIRC, all of those examples occurred when teams either played no bowl games or one. It's entirely another matter to claim a title when we do have a playoff system that requires a team to win two games against top-4 calibre teams. Had UCF had this season 40 years ago, then they could make a fanciful title claim even though no wire service votes them #1. Nobody would pay attention to it, the AP and UPI were the only widely-regarded title granters, but still they claim it. The playoffs eliminate all grounds for these kinds of frivolous claims.

Undefeated means little unless we know who a team played. Transitivity means even less - Auburn lost three games before losing to UCF, nobody, not even Auburn fans said they were playoff worthy, so how on earth does beating a non-playoff-worthy team mean you are national champs over teams that won actual playoff games?

It's astonishing that we have to keep going over this. 07-coffee3

Actually--we have a "playoff system" that by one of the commissioners own admission--eliminates the G5 from participation. Thats the exactly the type of environment that creates split championships. Ignore it or dont. Its going to to happen. If the the little CFP Invitational doesnt like it--then they should improve their product. This how things evolve.
True. But we all knew the playing field in August.
01-04-2018 12:26 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 24,933
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1011
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #67
RE: CFP selection committee defends leaving out undefeated UCF
(01-04-2018 12:26 PM)panama Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 12:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 12:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 11:54 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 10:39 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Actually no, as there are many examples of teams winning championships with more losses than other teams. A focus on losses alone is idiotic, as it ignores who you played.

There are also many many examples of teams declaring themselves national cahmpions---many of them are not even undefeated teams.

IIRC, all of those examples occurred when teams either played no bowl games or one. It's entirely another matter to claim a title when we do have a playoff system that requires a team to win two games against top-4 calibre teams. Had UCF had this season 40 years ago, then they could make a fanciful title claim even though no wire service votes them #1. Nobody would pay attention to it, the AP and UPI were the only widely-regarded title granters, but still they claim it. The playoffs eliminate all grounds for these kinds of frivolous claims.

Undefeated means little unless we know who a team played. Transitivity means even less - Auburn lost three games before losing to UCF, nobody, not even Auburn fans said they were playoff worthy, so how on earth does beating a non-playoff-worthy team mean you are national champs over teams that won actual playoff games?

It's astonishing that we have to keep going over this. 07-coffee3

Actually--we have a "playoff system" that by one of the commissioners own admission--eliminates the G5 from participation. Thats the exactly the type of environment that creates split championships. Ignore it or dont. Its going to to happen. If the the little CFP Invitational doesnt like it--then they should improve their product. This how things evolve.
True. But we all knew the playing field in August.

Actually--we didnt. The CFP has claimed that the G5 was included. Bill Hancock lied. The documents that the G5 signed are a lie. Its a CFP "Big Brand" Invitational and now everyone knows it. If everyone knows it--then why is Bill Hancock still spinning lies?
(This post was last modified: 01-04-2018 12:30 PM by Attackcoog.)
01-04-2018 12:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 26,807
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 594
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #68
RE: CFP selection committee defends leaving out undefeated UCF
(01-04-2018 12:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 12:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 11:54 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 10:39 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 10:35 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  Well there is the losers bracket playoffs while the only team in the country not in losers bracket is now claiming championship...sorry in sports...1loss<0

Actually no, as there are many examples of teams winning championships with more losses than other teams. A focus on losses alone is idiotic, as it ignores who you played.

There are also many many examples of teams declaring themselves national cahmpions---many of them are not even undefeated teams.

IIRC, all of those examples occurred when teams either played no bowl games or one. It's entirely another matter to claim a title when we do have a playoff system that requires a team to win two games against top-4 calibre teams. Had UCF had this season 40 years ago, then they could make a fanciful title claim even though no wire service votes them #1. Nobody would pay attention to it, the AP and UPI were the only widely-regarded title granters, but still they claim it. The playoffs eliminate all grounds for these kinds of frivolous claims.

Undefeated means little unless we know who a team played. Transitivity means even less - Auburn lost three games before losing to UCF, nobody, not even Auburn fans said they were playoff worthy, so how on earth does beating a non-playoff-worthy team mean you are national champs over teams that won actual playoff games?

It's astonishing that we have to keep going over this. 07-coffee3

Actually--we have a "playoff system" that by one of the commissioners own admission--eliminates the G5 from participation. Thats the exactly the type of environment that creates split championships. Ignore it or dont. Its going to to happen. If the the little CFP Invitational doesnt like it--then they should improve their product. This how things evolve.

First, things evolve when money comes in to the equation, never before. E.g., in 2003, we had the closest thing to an actual "split championship" as we've had in the BCS era, when USC was voted #1 in the AP poll while LSU won the BCS title.

What changed as a result? The BCS formula was tinkered with, but the BCS system didn't change at all, it endured another 10 years. Ditto in 2008, when Utah went undefeated but didn't make the BCS title game.

The system itself changed when the TV networks offered up more money for it to change. That is why ALL playoff systems change - NFL, MLB, NBA, college football. It's never because of theoretical reasons, it's always because someone offers more money to do it.

Second, there isn't going to be a "split championship". The CFP playoff produces the official champion agreed to by all 10 FBS conferences, including Aresco and the AAC, and therefore by UCF as well. So it doesn't even matter what the AP does. The winner of this week's title game will be the AAC's and UCF's champion, whether Aresco, the UCF President, the UCF AD, and Scott Frost like it or not, and no matter how many banners, rings, and parades they waste money on, and how many blog posts and tweets their supporters make. That's the reality.

But FWIW, the AP isn't going to vote UCF #1 either, and for obvious reasons, they didn't prove they were the best team.
(This post was last modified: 01-04-2018 12:33 PM by quo vadis.)
01-04-2018 12:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,012
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 119
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #69
RE: CFP selection committee defends leaving out undefeated UCF
(01-04-2018 12:29 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 12:26 PM)panama Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 12:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 12:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 11:54 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  There are also many many examples of teams declaring themselves national cahmpions---many of them are not even undefeated teams.

IIRC, all of those examples occurred when teams either played no bowl games or one. It's entirely another matter to claim a title when we do have a playoff system that requires a team to win two games against top-4 calibre teams. Had UCF had this season 40 years ago, then they could make a fanciful title claim even though no wire service votes them #1. Nobody would pay attention to it, the AP and UPI were the only widely-regarded title granters, but still they claim it. The playoffs eliminate all grounds for these kinds of frivolous claims.

Undefeated means little unless we know who a team played. Transitivity means even less - Auburn lost three games before losing to UCF, nobody, not even Auburn fans said they were playoff worthy, so how on earth does beating a non-playoff-worthy team mean you are national champs over teams that won actual playoff games?

It's astonishing that we have to keep going over this. 07-coffee3

Actually--we have a "playoff system" that by one of the commissioners own admission--eliminates the G5 from participation. Thats the exactly the type of environment that creates split championships. Ignore it or dont. Its going to to happen. If the the little CFP Invitational doesnt like it--then they should improve their product. This how things evolve.
True. But we all knew the playing field in August.

Actually--we didnt. The CFP has claimed that the G5 was included. Bill Hancock lied. The documents that the G5 signed are a lie. Its a CFP "Big Brand" Invitational and now everyone knows it. If everyone knows it--then why is Bill Hancock still spinning lies?



Actually, if noise State did not lose their 3 games? They would have been inside the top ten ahead of UCF. There are some favore towards certain G5 schools over others. Houston might have made the playoffs if they did not lose their last few games.
01-04-2018 12:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
panama Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 24,157
Joined: May 2009
Reputation: 337
I Root For: Georgia STATE
Location: East Atlanta Village
Post: #70
RE: CFP selection committee defends leaving out undefeated UCF
Under the current landscape a G5 is going to have to beat 2 non bottom feeder P5 schools in the regular season to get consideration. Period.
01-04-2018 12:41 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 24,933
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1011
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #71
RE: CFP selection committee defends leaving out undefeated UCF
(01-04-2018 12:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 12:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 12:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 11:54 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 10:39 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Actually no, as there are many examples of teams winning championships with more losses than other teams. A focus on losses alone is idiotic, as it ignores who you played.

There are also many many examples of teams declaring themselves national cahmpions---many of them are not even undefeated teams.

IIRC, all of those examples occurred when teams either played no bowl games or one. It's entirely another matter to claim a title when we do have a playoff system that requires a team to win two games against top-4 calibre teams. Had UCF had this season 40 years ago, then they could make a fanciful title claim even though no wire service votes them #1. Nobody would pay attention to it, the AP and UPI were the only widely-regarded title granters, but still they claim it. The playoffs eliminate all grounds for these kinds of frivolous claims.

Undefeated means little unless we know who a team played. Transitivity means even less - Auburn lost three games before losing to UCF, nobody, not even Auburn fans said they were playoff worthy, so how on earth does beating a non-playoff-worthy team mean you are national champs over teams that won actual playoff games?

It's astonishing that we have to keep going over this. 07-coffee3

Actually--we have a "playoff system" that by one of the commissioners own admission--eliminates the G5 from participation. Thats the exactly the type of environment that creates split championships. Ignore it or dont. Its going to to happen. If the the little CFP Invitational doesnt like it--then they should improve their product. This how things evolve.

First, things evolve when money comes in to the equation, never before. E.g., in 2003, we had the closest thing to an actual "split championship" as we've had in the BCS era, when USC was voted #1 in the AP poll while LSU won the BCS title.

What changed as a result? The BCS formula was tinkered with, but the BCS system didn't change at all, it endured another 10 years. Ditto in 2008, when Utah went undefeated but didn't make the BCS title game.

The system itself changed when the TV networks offered up more money for it to change. That is why ALL playoff systems change - NFL, MLB, NBA, college football. It's never because of theoretical reasons, it's always because someone offers more money to do it.

Second, there isn't going to be a "split championship". The CFP playoff produces the official champion agreed to by all 10 FBS conferences, including Aresco and the AAC, and therefore by UCF as well. So it doesn't even matter what the AP does. The winner of this week's title game will be the AAC's and UCF's champion, whether Aresco, the UCF President, the UCF AD, and Scott Frost like it or not, and no matter how many banners, rings, and parades they waste money on, and how many blog posts and tweets their supporters make. That's the reality.

But FWIW, the AP isn't going to vote UCF #1 either, and for obvious reasons, they didn't prove they were the best team.

So then why are running around so concerned? UCF will declare themselves National Champions. It will have no affect on anything according to you. If thats truly the case--there is no need for you to frantically attempt to delegitimize the move in post after post. I think the issue is--you really dont like the idea that many actually agree with the action. It is supported because many see the obvious bias and exclusion in the current system. Like it or not--change usually begins when someone draws attention to the problem. Like it or not--the CFP Invitational has a problem.

I saw this elsewhere--but it sums it up pretty well. UCF's claim of a national championship isn't about claiming an actual national championship - it's about claiming the right to legitimately play for one.
(This post was last modified: 01-04-2018 01:27 PM by Attackcoog.)
01-04-2018 01:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 24,933
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1011
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #72
RE: CFP selection committee defends leaving out undefeated UCF
(01-04-2018 12:33 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 12:29 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 12:26 PM)panama Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 12:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 12:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  IIRC, all of those examples occurred when teams either played no bowl games or one. It's entirely another matter to claim a title when we do have a playoff system that requires a team to win two games against top-4 calibre teams. Had UCF had this season 40 years ago, then they could make a fanciful title claim even though no wire service votes them #1. Nobody would pay attention to it, the AP and UPI were the only widely-regarded title granters, but still they claim it. The playoffs eliminate all grounds for these kinds of frivolous claims.

Undefeated means little unless we know who a team played. Transitivity means even less - Auburn lost three games before losing to UCF, nobody, not even Auburn fans said they were playoff worthy, so how on earth does beating a non-playoff-worthy team mean you are national champs over teams that won actual playoff games?

It's astonishing that we have to keep going over this. 07-coffee3

Actually--we have a "playoff system" that by one of the commissioners own admission--eliminates the G5 from participation. Thats the exactly the type of environment that creates split championships. Ignore it or dont. Its going to to happen. If the the little CFP Invitational doesnt like it--then they should improve their product. This how things evolve.
True. But we all knew the playing field in August.

Actually--we didnt. The CFP has claimed that the G5 was included. Bill Hancock lied. The documents that the G5 signed are a lie. Its a CFP "Big Brand" Invitational and now everyone knows it. If everyone knows it--then why is Bill Hancock still spinning lies?



Actually, if noise State did not lose their 3 games? They would have been inside the top ten ahead of UCF. There are some favore towards certain G5 schools over others. Houston might have made the playoffs if they did not lose their last few games.

Houston didnt lose their last few games. Houston was out of the race before they even played Louisville. That said, no other school in the nation would be required to play two top 5 teams and go undefeated just to be "considered" a top ten school. Honestly, Im not even sure this farce of a committee would place them in the top 10 given that even after playing 2 top 5 teams the 2016 UH schedule would have been ranked around 70th. The fact is, there is absolutely nothing a G5 can do to get into the top half of schedule strength when 2/3's of their games are required to be against G5's due to conference schedules. The other 1/3 is only somewhat under thier control. Do you think UH doesnt try to schedule as many P5's as possible. A P5 has to say "yes" before UH can schedule them. You cant just show up at their stadium. The committee knows this----thats why they know SOS is the perfect metric to use to disqualify G5's. It will always eliminate the G5 and it will always be available. Bowlsby basically said as much in his comments yesterday.

UCF's claim of a national championship isn't about claiming an actual national championship - it's about claiming the right to legitimately play for one.
(This post was last modified: 01-04-2018 01:28 PM by Attackcoog.)
01-04-2018 01:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 26,807
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 594
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #73
RE: CFP selection committee defends leaving out undefeated UCF
(01-04-2018 01:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 12:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 12:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 12:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 11:54 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  There are also many many examples of teams declaring themselves national cahmpions---many of them are not even undefeated teams.

IIRC, all of those examples occurred when teams either played no bowl games or one. It's entirely another matter to claim a title when we do have a playoff system that requires a team to win two games against top-4 calibre teams. Had UCF had this season 40 years ago, then they could make a fanciful title claim even though no wire service votes them #1. Nobody would pay attention to it, the AP and UPI were the only widely-regarded title granters, but still they claim it. The playoffs eliminate all grounds for these kinds of frivolous claims.

Undefeated means little unless we know who a team played. Transitivity means even less - Auburn lost three games before losing to UCF, nobody, not even Auburn fans said they were playoff worthy, so how on earth does beating a non-playoff-worthy team mean you are national champs over teams that won actual playoff games?

It's astonishing that we have to keep going over this. 07-coffee3

Actually--we have a "playoff system" that by one of the commissioners own admission--eliminates the G5 from participation. Thats the exactly the type of environment that creates split championships. Ignore it or dont. Its going to to happen. If the the little CFP Invitational doesnt like it--then they should improve their product. This how things evolve.

First, things evolve when money comes in to the equation, never before. E.g., in 2003, we had the closest thing to an actual "split championship" as we've had in the BCS era, when USC was voted #1 in the AP poll while LSU won the BCS title.

What changed as a result? The BCS formula was tinkered with, but the BCS system didn't change at all, it endured another 10 years. Ditto in 2008, when Utah went undefeated but didn't make the BCS title game.

The system itself changed when the TV networks offered up more money for it to change. That is why ALL playoff systems change - NFL, MLB, NBA, college football. It's never because of theoretical reasons, it's always because someone offers more money to do it.

Second, there isn't going to be a "split championship". The CFP playoff produces the official champion agreed to by all 10 FBS conferences, including Aresco and the AAC, and therefore by UCF as well. So it doesn't even matter what the AP does. The winner of this week's title game will be the AAC's and UCF's champion, whether Aresco, the UCF President, the UCF AD, and Scott Frost like it or not, and no matter how many banners, rings, and parades they waste money on, and how many blog posts and tweets their supporters make. That's the reality.

But FWIW, the AP isn't going to vote UCF #1 either, and for obvious reasons, they didn't prove they were the best team.

So then why are running around so concerned? UCF will declare themselves National Champions. It will have no affect on anything according to you. If thats truly the case--there is no need for you to frantically attempt to delegitimize the move in post after post.

If that's the criteria for posting around here, my post count would be zero and so would yours. I don't think anyone here thinks that what they say impacts on what happens in the real world, i certainly don't. So no, I'm not "frantically" trying to delegitimize the UCF claims, because that implies that i think I have any power to affect that or any other college football issue - and i don't.

All I'm doing is arguing with other non-entities around here who are making claims about this or that. That's all any of us do. It's the nature of this particular forum*. In this case, the reality is there will be no split champion, and also there will be no push to create an 8-team playoff, as playoff expansion *only* responds to one factor, money, not competitive fairness.




* Though not all, e.g., I'm on a music forum where one of the regulars is a guy who actually is a music business player, has produced or mixed albums for acts like Metallica, the Cars, and Bob Dylan. Likewise, I'm on a movie box office forum where two very high-level executives at Warners and Disney are known to post, albeit anonymously. They have access to real numbers long before the media does.

But this forum isn't like that. We don't have Nick Saban or Kirk Herbstreit or the CFP president posting here.
(This post was last modified: 01-04-2018 01:45 PM by quo vadis.)
01-04-2018 01:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
rtaylor Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,127
Joined: Feb 2014
Reputation: 134
I Root For: Bearcats
Location:
Post: #74
RE: CFP selection committee defends leaving out undefeated UCF
(01-04-2018 01:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 01:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 12:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 12:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 12:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  IIRC, all of those examples occurred when teams either played no bowl games or one. It's entirely another matter to claim a title when we do have a playoff system that requires a team to win two games against top-4 calibre teams. Had UCF had this season 40 years ago, then they could make a fanciful title claim even though no wire service votes them #1. Nobody would pay attention to it, the AP and UPI were the only widely-regarded title granters, but still they claim it. The playoffs eliminate all grounds for these kinds of frivolous claims.

Undefeated means little unless we know who a team played. Transitivity means even less - Auburn lost three games before losing to UCF, nobody, not even Auburn fans said they were playoff worthy, so how on earth does beating a non-playoff-worthy team mean you are national champs over teams that won actual playoff games?

It's astonishing that we have to keep going over this. 07-coffee3

Actually--we have a "playoff system" that by one of the commissioners own admission--eliminates the G5 from participation. Thats the exactly the type of environment that creates split championships. Ignore it or dont. Its going to to happen. If the the little CFP Invitational doesnt like it--then they should improve their product. This how things evolve.

First, things evolve when money comes in to the equation, never before. E.g., in 2003, we had the closest thing to an actual "split championship" as we've had in the BCS era, when USC was voted #1 in the AP poll while LSU won the BCS title.

What changed as a result? The BCS formula was tinkered with, but the BCS system didn't change at all, it endured another 10 years. Ditto in 2008, when Utah went undefeated but didn't make the BCS title game.

The system itself changed when the TV networks offered up more money for it to change. That is why ALL playoff systems change - NFL, MLB, NBA, college football. It's never because of theoretical reasons, it's always because someone offers more money to do it.

Second, there isn't going to be a "split championship". The CFP playoff produces the official champion agreed to by all 10 FBS conferences, including Aresco and the AAC, and therefore by UCF as well. So it doesn't even matter what the AP does. The winner of this week's title game will be the AAC's and UCF's champion, whether Aresco, the UCF President, the UCF AD, and Scott Frost like it or not, and no matter how many banners, rings, and parades they waste money on, and how many blog posts and tweets their supporters make. That's the reality.

But FWIW, the AP isn't going to vote UCF #1 either, and for obvious reasons, they didn't prove they were the best team.

So then why are running around so concerned? UCF will declare themselves National Champions. It will have no affect on anything according to you. If thats truly the case--there is no need for you to frantically attempt to delegitimize the move in post after post.

If that's the criteria for posting around here, my post count would be zero and so would yours. I don't think anyone here thinks that what they say impacts on what happens in the real world, i certainly don't. So no, I'm not "frantically" trying to delegitimize the UCF claims, because that implies that i think I have any power to affect that or any other college football issue - and i don't.

All I'm doing is arguing with other non-entities around here who are making claims about this or that. That's all any of us do. It's the nature of this particular forum*. In this case, the reality is there will be no split champion, and also there will be no push to create an 8-team playoff, as playoff expansion *only* responds to one factor, money, not competitive fairness.




* Though not all, e.g., I'm on a music forum where one of the regulars is a guy who actually is a music business player, has produced or mixed albums for acts like Metallica, the Cars, and Bob Dylan. Likewise, I'm on a movie box office forum where two very high-level executives at Warners and Disney are known to post, albeit anonymously. They have access to real numbers long before the media does.

But this forum isn't like that. We don't have Nick Saban or Kirk Herbstreit or the CFP president posting here.

No push for an 8 team playoff? Hmmmm.https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/why-an-eight-team-college-football-playoff-could-come-to-pass-sooner-than-we-expect/
01-04-2018 02:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 24,933
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1011
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #75
RE: CFP selection committee defends leaving out undefeated UCF
(01-04-2018 01:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 01:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 12:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 12:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 12:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  IIRC, all of those examples occurred when teams either played no bowl games or one. It's entirely another matter to claim a title when we do have a playoff system that requires a team to win two games against top-4 calibre teams. Had UCF had this season 40 years ago, then they could make a fanciful title claim even though no wire service votes them #1. Nobody would pay attention to it, the AP and UPI were the only widely-regarded title granters, but still they claim it. The playoffs eliminate all grounds for these kinds of frivolous claims.

Undefeated means little unless we know who a team played. Transitivity means even less - Auburn lost three games before losing to UCF, nobody, not even Auburn fans said they were playoff worthy, so how on earth does beating a non-playoff-worthy team mean you are national champs over teams that won actual playoff games?

It's astonishing that we have to keep going over this. 07-coffee3

Actually--we have a "playoff system" that by one of the commissioners own admission--eliminates the G5 from participation. Thats the exactly the type of environment that creates split championships. Ignore it or dont. Its going to to happen. If the the little CFP Invitational doesnt like it--then they should improve their product. This how things evolve.

First, things evolve when money comes in to the equation, never before. E.g., in 2003, we had the closest thing to an actual "split championship" as we've had in the BCS era, when USC was voted #1 in the AP poll while LSU won the BCS title.

What changed as a result? The BCS formula was tinkered with, but the BCS system didn't change at all, it endured another 10 years. Ditto in 2008, when Utah went undefeated but didn't make the BCS title game.

The system itself changed when the TV networks offered up more money for it to change. That is why ALL playoff systems change - NFL, MLB, NBA, college football. It's never because of theoretical reasons, it's always because someone offers more money to do it.

Second, there isn't going to be a "split championship". The CFP playoff produces the official champion agreed to by all 10 FBS conferences, including Aresco and the AAC, and therefore by UCF as well. So it doesn't even matter what the AP does. The winner of this week's title game will be the AAC's and UCF's champion, whether Aresco, the UCF President, the UCF AD, and Scott Frost like it or not, and no matter how many banners, rings, and parades they waste money on, and how many blog posts and tweets their supporters make. That's the reality.

But FWIW, the AP isn't going to vote UCF #1 either, and for obvious reasons, they didn't prove they were the best team.

So then why are running around so concerned? UCF will declare themselves National Champions. It will have no affect on anything according to you. If thats truly the case--there is no need for you to frantically attempt to delegitimize the move in post after post.

If that's the criteria for posting around here, my post count would be zero and so would yours. I don't think anyone here thinks that what they say impacts on what happens in the real world, i certainly don't. So no, I'm not "frantically" trying to delegitimize the UCF claims, because that implies that i think I have any power to affect that or any other college football issue - and i don't.

All I'm doing is arguing with other non-entities around here who are making claims about this or that. That's all any of us do. It's the nature of this particular forum*. In this case, the reality is there will be no split champion, and also there will be no push to create an 8-team playoff, as playoff expansion *only* responds to one factor, money, not competitive fairness.




* Though not all, e.g., I'm on a music forum where one of the regulars is a guy who actually is a music business player, has produced or mixed albums for acts like Metallica, the Cars, and Bob Dylan. Likewise, I'm on a movie box office forum where two very high-level executives at Warners and Disney are known to post, albeit anonymously. They have access to real numbers long before the media does.

But this forum isn't like that. We don't have Nick Saban or Kirk Herbstreit or the CFP president posting here.

There already is a split champion. Thats simply a hitorical fact at this point. How legitimate or how widely recognized it is another debate. As to fairness--the BCS was modified strictly on the basis of fairness. There wasnt a huge bucket of money that drove the expansion that allowed the non-AQ access. Change in that instance was driven entirely by Cowen whipping up public pressure. The BCS got a few dollars for adding another game, but without the Cowen public pressure aimed at giving the non-AQ access--that expansion doesnt happen. The BCS didnt meet and say--how can we make more money? They met and said--how can we get this friggin monkey off our backs?
(This post was last modified: 01-04-2018 02:36 PM by Attackcoog.)
01-04-2018 02:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
johnbragg Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 8,987
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 298
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #76
RE: CFP selection committee defends leaving out undefeated UCF
(01-04-2018 02:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  There already is a split champion. Thats simply a hitorical fact at this point. How legitimate or how widely recognized it is another debate. As to fairness--the BCS was modified strictly on the basis of fairness. There wasnt a huge bucket of money that drove the expansion that allowed the non-AQ access. Change in that instance was driven entirely by Cowen whipping up public pressure. The BCS got a few dollars for adding another game, but without the Cowen public pressure aimed at giving the non-AQ access--that expansion doesnt happen. The BCS didnt meet and say--how can we make more money? They met and said--how can we get this friggin monkey off our backs?

Yes. This is about making enough noise that, if/when the playoff goes to 8, the Access Bowl becomes an autobid.

Hail UCF Golden Knights, 2017 American College Football Undefeated Champions.
01-04-2018 02:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 24,933
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1011
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #77
RE: CFP selection committee defends leaving out undefeated UCF
(01-04-2018 02:18 PM)rtaylor Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 01:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 01:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 12:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 12:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Actually--we have a "playoff system" that by one of the commissioners own admission--eliminates the G5 from participation. Thats the exactly the type of environment that creates split championships. Ignore it or dont. Its going to to happen. If the the little CFP Invitational doesnt like it--then they should improve their product. This how things evolve.

First, things evolve when money comes in to the equation, never before. E.g., in 2003, we had the closest thing to an actual "split championship" as we've had in the BCS era, when USC was voted #1 in the AP poll while LSU won the BCS title.

What changed as a result? The BCS formula was tinkered with, but the BCS system didn't change at all, it endured another 10 years. Ditto in 2008, when Utah went undefeated but didn't make the BCS title game.

The system itself changed when the TV networks offered up more money for it to change. That is why ALL playoff systems change - NFL, MLB, NBA, college football. It's never because of theoretical reasons, it's always because someone offers more money to do it.

Second, there isn't going to be a "split championship". The CFP playoff produces the official champion agreed to by all 10 FBS conferences, including Aresco and the AAC, and therefore by UCF as well. So it doesn't even matter what the AP does. The winner of this week's title game will be the AAC's and UCF's champion, whether Aresco, the UCF President, the UCF AD, and Scott Frost like it or not, and no matter how many banners, rings, and parades they waste money on, and how many blog posts and tweets their supporters make. That's the reality.

But FWIW, the AP isn't going to vote UCF #1 either, and for obvious reasons, they didn't prove they were the best team.

So then why are running around so concerned? UCF will declare themselves National Champions. It will have no affect on anything according to you. If thats truly the case--there is no need for you to frantically attempt to delegitimize the move in post after post.

If that's the criteria for posting around here, my post count would be zero and so would yours. I don't think anyone here thinks that what they say impacts on what happens in the real world, i certainly don't. So no, I'm not "frantically" trying to delegitimize the UCF claims, because that implies that i think I have any power to affect that or any other college football issue - and i don't.

All I'm doing is arguing with other non-entities around here who are making claims about this or that. That's all any of us do. It's the nature of this particular forum*. In this case, the reality is there will be no split champion, and also there will be no push to create an 8-team playoff, as playoff expansion *only* responds to one factor, money, not competitive fairness.




* Though not all, e.g., I'm on a music forum where one of the regulars is a guy who actually is a music business player, has produced or mixed albums for acts like Metallica, the Cars, and Bob Dylan. Likewise, I'm on a movie box office forum where two very high-level executives at Warners and Disney are known to post, albeit anonymously. They have access to real numbers long before the media does.

But this forum isn't like that. We don't have Nick Saban or Kirk Herbstreit or the CFP president posting here.

No push for an 8 team playoff? Hmmmm.https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/why-an-eight-team-college-football-playoff-could-come-to-pass-sooner-than-we-expect/

In public relations--thats what you call a trial balloon. That story was leaked expressly to test the waters--I guarantee it.
(This post was last modified: 01-04-2018 03:44 PM by Attackcoog.)
01-04-2018 03:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,012
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 119
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #78
RE: CFP selection committee defends leaving out undefeated UCF
(01-04-2018 12:41 PM)panama Wrote:  Under the current landscape a G5 is going to have to beat 2 non bottom feeder P5 schools in the regular season to get consideration. Period.


I think Boise State beat oregon the year they beat Oklahoma and be undefeated. Oregon was the PAC 10 champ that year. As it is, Boise do have the respect of the P5, but outside of the PAC 12 north, and a few ACc schools here and there, the other P5 schools are afraid to have them on the schedule. They are afraid to be beaten by them. I am waiting for the day of the Florida State visiting Boise State on the blue turf in a few years. IF FSU struggles on playing on the field? Boise State might pull off the upset.
01-04-2018 04:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 26,807
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 594
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #79
RE: CFP selection committee defends leaving out undefeated UCF
(01-04-2018 02:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 01:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 01:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 12:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-04-2018 12:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Actually--we have a "playoff system" that by one of the commissioners own admission--eliminates the G5 from participation. Thats the exactly the type of environment that creates split championships. Ignore it or dont. Its going to to happen. If the the little CFP Invitational doesnt like it--then they should improve their product. This how things evolve.

First, things evolve when money comes in to the equation, never before. E.g., in 2003, we had the closest thing to an actual "split championship" as we've had in the BCS era, when USC was voted #1 in the AP poll while LSU won the BCS title.

What changed as a result? The BCS formula was tinkered with, but the BCS system didn't change at all, it endured another 10 years. Ditto in 2008, when Utah went undefeated but didn't make the BCS title game.

The system itself changed when the TV networks offered up more money for it to change. That is why ALL playoff systems change - NFL, MLB, NBA, college football. It's never because of theoretical reasons, it's always because someone offers more money to do it.

Second, there isn't going to be a "split championship". The CFP playoff produces the official champion agreed to by all 10 FBS conferences, including Aresco and the AAC, and therefore by UCF as well. So it doesn't even matter what the AP does. The winner of this week's title game will be the AAC's and UCF's champion, whether Aresco, the UCF President, the UCF AD, and Scott Frost like it or not, and no matter how many banners, rings, and parades they waste money on, and how many blog posts and tweets their supporters make. That's the reality.

But FWIW, the AP isn't going to vote UCF #1 either, and for obvious reasons, they didn't prove they were the best team.

So then why are running around so concerned? UCF will declare themselves National Champions. It will have no affect on anything according to you. If thats truly the case--there is no need for you to frantically attempt to delegitimize the move in post after post.

If that's the criteria for posting around here, my post count would be zero and so would yours. I don't think anyone here thinks that what they say impacts on what happens in the real world, i certainly don't. So no, I'm not "frantically" trying to delegitimize the UCF claims, because that implies that i think I have any power to affect that or any other college football issue - and i don't.

All I'm doing is arguing with other non-entities around here who are making claims about this or that. That's all any of us do. It's the nature of this particular forum*. In this case, the reality is there will be no split champion, and also there will be no push to create an 8-team playoff, as playoff expansion *only* responds to one factor, money, not competitive fairness.




* Though not all, e.g., I'm on a music forum where one of the regulars is a guy who actually is a music business player, has produced or mixed albums for acts like Metallica, the Cars, and Bob Dylan. Likewise, I'm on a movie box office forum where two very high-level executives at Warners and Disney are known to post, albeit anonymously. They have access to real numbers long before the media does.

But this forum isn't like that. We don't have Nick Saban or Kirk Herbstreit or the CFP president posting here.

There already is a split champion. Thats simply a hitorical fact at this point.

03-lmfao There's no split champion, it isn't a historical fact of any kind no matter how many proclamations Aresco or UCF officials make, or how many sportswriters write columns saying UCF got screwed or deserves to call themselves a champion, as that isn't what defines a split champion. Historically, at least since the 1970s, "Split Champion" means that the two major polls disagree on who the champ is. E.g., 1997 is a split champion year because Michigan got the AP vote and Nebraska the Coaches vote. That's a split champion. A split champion isn't when one rinky-dink group nobody ever heard of says team X is the champ when the AP and Coaches both pick team Y.

If the latter is the case, I guess I can declare that USF is the national champion, make up hats and banners and rings, throw a parade, and that makes it a 3-way tie for this year's title, right? Hilarious.

The only way one can plausibly claim that this year is a split champion is if the AP votes for someone other than the CFP title game winner.

Wake me up when that happens. 07-coffee3
(This post was last modified: 01-04-2018 05:35 PM by quo vadis.)
01-04-2018 05:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
johnbragg Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 8,987
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 298
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #80
RE: CFP selection committee defends leaving out undefeated UCF
(01-04-2018 05:31 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  If the latter is the case, I guess I can declare that USF is the national champion, make up hats and banners and rings, throw a parade, and that makes it a 3-way tie for this year's title, right? Hilarious.

The only way one can plausibly claim that this year is a split champion is if the AP votes for someone other than the CFP title game winner.

Wake me up when that happens. 07-coffee3

This headline is perfect.

UCF simply following in Alabama's footsteps (and others) in claiming false national title
(This post was last modified: 01-04-2018 06:16 PM by johnbragg.)
01-04-2018 06:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.