Koi

(11-07-2018 04:54 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(11-07-2018 04:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-06-2018 04:09 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(11-06-2018 09:09 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-05-2018 09:02 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  As far as motivation was concerned, [Kerryon] Johnson made it clear he and his teammates were ready to go. He dispelled any “outside talk” as far as the players not giving their all, saying everyone involved realizes the work they put in to add an 11th win to the season.

“We were plenty motivated to get this win. We just shot ourselves in the foot,” Johnson said. “We knew how bad we wanted to win this game, and that’s what matters.”

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.ledger-en...87439.html

It's funny how every time it is pointed out the obvious reasons why Auburn had no motivation to play UCF, the Kerryon Johnson quote is trotted out. KJ was almost surely engaging in "coach speak", he was saying what was expected of him. Had he told the truth - "we had already lost the only things that matter to us, the SEC title and going to the playoffs, then to rub salt in the wound got stuck playing the G5 team in the bowl, so couldn't give a damn about this game" - he would have been pilloried in the press, etc.

If the players actually think that they're so good they shouldn't have to play a G5 team - they shouldn't lose to them. You'd think at some point during the game they would think, hey, we're losing, we better start playing. My question would be, if it had been a mediocre P5 team they had to play, would they have been more motivated, even if that P5 team wasn't as good as the G5 team?

Either way, it doesn't provide a built-in excuse for the so-called unmotivated team to lose. They still lost.

No question, they lost. But the lack of motivation is a reason to not draw implications about it beyond the parameters of the game.

I think you can draw the exact same implications that you can from 2 equal teams where one wins because they were more motivated. Which means, basically it's just like any other game.

I disagree. IMO you can't e.g. draw the same implications from UCF vs Auburn as you could between say Clemson vs Alabama, where both teams had the same goals and motivation. The latter is a much better indicator that the result of the game is strong evidence about who was better and how the winner would fare against teams similar to the one they beat.

(11-07-2018 09:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Koi

(11-07-2018 04:54 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(11-07-2018 04:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-06-2018 04:09 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(11-06-2018 09:09 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  It's funny how every time it is pointed out the obvious reasons why Auburn had no motivation to play UCF, the Kerryon Johnson quote is trotted out. KJ was almost surely engaging in "coach speak", he was saying what was expected of him. Had he told the truth - "we had already lost the only things that matter to us, the SEC title and going to the playoffs, then to rub salt in the wound got stuck playing the G5 team in the bowl, so couldn't give a damn about this game" - he would have been pilloried in the press, etc.

If the players actually think that they're so good they shouldn't have to play a G5 team - they shouldn't lose to them. You'd think at some point during the game they would think, hey, we're losing, we better start playing. My question would be, if it had been a mediocre P5 team they had to play, would they have been more motivated, even if that P5 team wasn't as good as the G5 team?

Either way, it doesn't provide a built-in excuse for the so-called unmotivated team to lose. They still lost.

No question, they lost. But the lack of motivation is a reason to not draw implications about it beyond the parameters of the game.

I think you can draw the exact same implications that you can from 2 equal teams where one wins because they were more motivated. Which means, basically it's just like any other game.

I disagree. IMO you can't e.g. draw the same implications from UCF vs Auburn as you could between say Clemson vs Alabama, where both teams had the same goals and motivation. The latter is a much better indicator that the result of the game is strong evidence about who was better and how the winner would fare against teams similar to the one they beat.

Ok, so if a P5 team loses to a G5 team it doesn't count because they weren't motivated. Sure.

(11-08-2018 11:50 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(11-07-2018 09:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Koi

(11-07-2018 04:54 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(11-07-2018 04:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-06-2018 04:09 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  If the players actually think that they're so good they shouldn't have to play a G5 team - they shouldn't lose to them. You'd think at some point during the game they would think, hey, we're losing, we better start playing. My question would be, if it had been a mediocre P5 team they had to play, would they have been more motivated, even if that P5 team wasn't as good as the G5 team?

Either way, it doesn't provide a built-in excuse for the so-called unmotivated team to lose. They still lost.

No question, they lost. But the lack of motivation is a reason to not draw implications about it beyond the parameters of the game.

I think you can draw the exact same implications that you can from 2 equal teams where one wins because they were more motivated. Which means, basically it's just like any other game.

I disagree. IMO you can't e.g. draw the same implications from UCF vs Auburn as you could between say Clemson vs Alabama, where both teams had the same goals and motivation. The latter is a much better indicator that the result of the game is strong evidence about who was better and how the winner would fare against teams similar to the one they beat.

Ok, so if a P5 team loses to a G5 team it doesn't count because they weren't motivated. Sure.

Come on, you're better than that, you know that's not what I said. First, I said that UCF won the game over Auburn, so of course that fully counts as a Peach Bowl victory. Kudos to them.

I only said that we can't draw implications about it beyond the parameters of the game, such as "this proves UCF was better than Auburn" or "this proves that UCF deserved to be in the playoffs".

Also, the obvious implication of what I said is that if a P5 and G5 have the same motivation, then of course the game 'counts' in terms of implications. E.g., if NIU played Ohio State in a playoff game, then that would be the same motivational situation for both.

(11-08-2018 12:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 11:50 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(11-07-2018 09:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Koi

(11-07-2018 04:54 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(11-07-2018 04:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  No question, they lost. But the lack of motivation is a reason to not draw implications about it beyond the parameters of the game.

I think you can draw the exact same implications that you can from 2 equal teams where one wins because they were more motivated. Which means, basically it's just like any other game.

I disagree. IMO you can't e.g. draw the same implications from UCF vs Auburn as you could between say Clemson vs Alabama, where both teams had the same goals and motivation. The latter is a much better indicator that the result of the game is strong evidence about who was better and how the winner would fare against teams similar to the one they beat.

Ok, so if a P5 team loses to a G5 team it doesn't count because they weren't motivated. Sure.

Come on, you're better than that, you know that's not what I said. First, I said that UCF won the game over Auburn, so of course that fully counts as a Peach Bowl victory. Kudos to them.

I only said that we can't draw implications about it beyond the parameters of the game, such as "this proves UCF was better than Auburn" or "this proves that UCF deserved to be in the playoffs".

Also, the obvious implication of what I said is that if a P5 and G5 have the same motivation, then of course the game 'counts' in terms of implications. E.g., if NIU played Ohio State in a playoff game, then that would be the same motivational situation for both.

If you watched the Peach Bowl last year, you'd notice that the excuses that Auburn didn't care began early in the second half when UCF's front 7 started kicking Auburns O-line's *** up and down the field. UCF dominated the second half. Only then did Auburn not "care."

(11-08-2018 12:06 PM)kurtrundell Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 12:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 11:50 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(11-07-2018 09:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Koi

(11-07-2018 04:54 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I think you can draw the exact same implications that you can from 2 equal teams where one wins because they were more motivated. Which means, basically it's just like any other game.

I disagree. IMO you can't e.g. draw the same implications from UCF vs Auburn as you could between say Clemson vs Alabama, where both teams had the same goals and motivation. The latter is a much better indicator that the result of the game is strong evidence about who was better and how the winner would fare against teams similar to the one they beat.

Ok, so if a P5 team loses to a G5 team it doesn't count because they weren't motivated. Sure.

Come on, you're better than that, you know that's not what I said. First, I said that UCF won the game over Auburn, so of course that fully counts as a Peach Bowl victory. Kudos to them.

I only said that we can't draw implications about it beyond the parameters of the game, such as "this proves UCF was better than Auburn" or "this proves that UCF deserved to be in the playoffs".

Also, the obvious implication of what I said is that if a P5 and G5 have the same motivation, then of course the game 'counts' in terms of implications. E.g., if NIU played Ohio State in a playoff game, then that would be the same motivational situation for both.

If you watched the Peach Bowl last year, you'd notice that the excuses that Auburn didn't care began early in the second half when UCF's front 7 started kicking Auburns O-line's *** up and down the field. UCF dominated the second half. Only then did Auburn not "care."

Exactly. The "Auburn didnt care" narrative doesnt make much sense in a game where Auburn was actually winning halfway into the 3rd quarter. So they cared in the first 3 quarters and then lost interest? Yeah...pretty weak sauce.

(11-08-2018 01:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 12:06 PM)kurtrundell Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 12:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 11:50 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(11-07-2018 09:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Koi
I disagree. IMO you can't e.g. draw the same implications from UCF vs Auburn as you could between say Clemson vs Alabama, where both teams had the same goals and motivation. The latter is a much better indicator that the result of the game is strong evidence about who was better and how the winner would fare against teams similar to the one they beat.

Ok, so if a P5 team loses to a G5 team it doesn't count because they weren't motivated. Sure.

Come on, you're better than that, you know that's not what I said. First, I said that UCF won the game over Auburn, so of course that fully counts as a Peach Bowl victory. Kudos to them.

I only said that we can't draw implications about it beyond the parameters of the game, such as "this proves UCF was better than Auburn" or "this proves that UCF deserved to be in the playoffs".

Also, the obvious implication of what I said is that if a P5 and G5 have the same motivation, then of course the game 'counts' in terms of implications. E.g., if NIU played Ohio State in a playoff game, then that would be the same motivational situation for both.

If you watched the Peach Bowl last year, you'd notice that the excuses that Auburn didn't care began early in the second half when UCF's front 7 started kicking Auburns O-line's *** up and down the field. UCF dominated the second half. Only then did Auburn not "care."

Exactly. The "Auburn didnt care" narrative doesnt make much sense in a game where Auburn was actually winning halfway into the 3rd quarter. So they cared in the first 3 quarters and then lost interest? Yeah...pretty weak sauce.

What's weak is that we are almost through with the next season and this is even a topic for discussion. An undefeated Auburn squad with 3 #1 draft picks was passed over for the BCS in 2004. But that's ancient history, and it was ancient history in the Fall of 2005.

The FBS approved the CFP and its selection criteria. By that criteria UCF wasn't selected to play in the final four. Your issue is better addressed through the FBS to the CFP committee than on a message board.

But as to your "weak sauce" Auburn played without the #1 running back Pettway who was out with injuries. Auburn played without the #2 running back who appeared for a just a few plays in the game. Auburn played without our starting Corner Back because of his draft status and potential signing bonus. And we still led through 3 qtrs and finished the game inside the UCF 15 with a tying score yards away.

The fact that we led through 3 qtrs in a game where the offense had major lapses throughout the first half means nothing. If UCF was worthy of a CFP slot they should have blown us out like Georgia did in our 2nd meeting. We were in the same condition playing Georgia that we were in playing UCF and it was Georgia that was the 4th team into the CFP. The fact that you managed to pull out a win against a banged up Auburn squad wasn't the eye test for UCF claims that everyone made it out to be.

Were the Knights good? Absolutely. Could they have played with Georgia or Alabama? Sure. Would they have won against either? Highly unlikely. And since I witnessed all 3 of those teams I must say that the UCF QB and at least 2 of the receivers would have matched up just fine. But the Alabama secondary was much better than Auburn's and their D Line was deeper than ours and we had 1 man down there for the UCF game too. Georgia's running game would have been too much for UCF as Auburn managed a lead into the 3rd qtr with much much less.

So hat's off to the Knights for beating us. But, that was last year.

(11-08-2018 12:06 PM)kurtrundell Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 12:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 11:50 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(11-07-2018 09:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Koi

(11-07-2018 04:54 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I think you can draw the exact same implications that you can from 2 equal teams where one wins because they were more motivated. Which means, basically it's just like any other game.

I disagree. IMO you can't e.g. draw the same implications from UCF vs Auburn as you could between say Clemson vs Alabama, where both teams had the same goals and motivation. The latter is a much better indicator that the result of the game is strong evidence about who was better and how the winner would fare against teams similar to the one they beat.

Ok, so if a P5 team loses to a G5 team it doesn't count because they weren't motivated. Sure.

Come on, you're better than that, you know that's not what I said. First, I said that UCF won the game over Auburn, so of course that fully counts as a Peach Bowl victory. Kudos to them.

I only said that we can't draw implications about it beyond the parameters of the game, such as "this proves UCF was better than Auburn" or "this proves that UCF deserved to be in the playoffs".

Also, the obvious implication of what I said is that if a P5 and G5 have the same motivation, then of course the game 'counts' in terms of implications. E.g., if NIU played Ohio State in a playoff game, then that would be the same motivational situation for both.

If you watched the Peach Bowl last year, you'd notice that the excuses that Auburn didn't care began early in the second half when UCF's front 7 started kicking Auburns O-line's *** up and down the field. UCF dominated the second half. Only then did Auburn not "care."

Not in my case. Well before the game, I predicted a UCF win and for the very reasons I've mentioned since - UCF would be chomping at the bit to prove to the world that they were a worthy team, whereas Auburn would be in the emotional pits at losing their chances for the SEC and national titles that had seemed well within their grasp.

And yes, it's perfectly possible for an unmotivated team X to be beating motivated team Y in the third quarter and still lose. The game is four quarters long, and if team X is say more talented, that talent could give them a lead in the game.

This really is just elementary group psychology.

(11-08-2018 01:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 01:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 12:06 PM)kurtrundell Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 12:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 11:50 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  Ok, so if a P5 team loses to a G5 team it doesn't count because they weren't motivated. Sure.

Come on, you're better than that, you know that's not what I said. First, I said that UCF won the game over Auburn, so of course that fully counts as a Peach Bowl victory. Kudos to them.

I only said that we can't draw implications about it beyond the parameters of the game, such as "this proves UCF was better than Auburn" or "this proves that UCF deserved to be in the playoffs".

Also, the obvious implication of what I said is that if a P5 and G5 have the same motivation, then of course the game 'counts' in terms of implications. E.g., if NIU played Ohio State in a playoff game, then that would be the same motivational situation for both.

If you watched the Peach Bowl last year, you'd notice that the excuses that Auburn didn't care began early in the second half when UCF's front 7 started kicking Auburns O-line's *** up and down the field. UCF dominated the second half. Only then did Auburn not "care."

Exactly. The "Auburn didnt care" narrative doesnt make much sense in a game where Auburn was actually winning halfway into the 3rd quarter. So they cared in the first 3 quarters and then lost interest? Yeah...pretty weak sauce.

What's weak is that we are almost through with the next season and this is even a topic for discussion. An undefeated Auburn squad with 3 #1 draft picks was passed over for the BCS in 2004. But that's ancient history, and it was ancient history in the Fall of 2005.

The FBS approved the CFP and its selection criteria. By that criteria UCF wasn't selected to play in the final four. Your issue is better addressed through the FBS to the CFP committee than on a message board.

But as to your "weak sauce" Auburn played without the #1 running back Pettway who was out with injuries. Auburn played without the #2 running back who appeared for a just a few plays in the game. Auburn played without our starting Corner Back because of his draft status and potential signing bonus. And we still led through 3 qtrs and finished the game inside the UCF 15 with a tying score yards away.

The fact that we led through 3 qtrs in a game where the offense had major lapses throughout the first half means nothing. If UCF was worthy of a CFP slot they should have blown us out like Georgia did in our 2nd meeting. We were in the same condition playing Georgia that we were in playing UCF and it was Georgia that was the 4th team into the CFP. The fact that you managed to pull out a win against a banged up Auburn squad wasn't the eye test for UCF claims that everyone made it out to be.

Were the Knights good? Absolutely. Could they have played with Georgia or Alabama? Sure. Would they have won against either? Highly unlikely. And since I witnessed all 3 of those teams I must say that the UCF QB and at least 2 of the receivers would have matched up just fine. But the Alabama secondary was much better than Auburn's and their D Line was deeper than ours and we had 1 man down there for the UCF game too. Georgia's running game would have been too much for UCF as Auburn managed a lead into the 3rd qtr with much much less.

So hat's off to the Knights for beating us. But, that was last year.

I actually havent argued that they definitely deserved the playoff slot this year or last. My gripe is they were sitting at number 12 last year and were the only undefeated team left in FBS. That didnt make sense then and it made even less sense after they beat Auburn---yet here we are again----UCF at 21 consecutive wins, undefeated, sitting at number 12---getting jumped week after week. And to be clear---its not as if Im the only one who is concluding that the deck is stacked. Numerous national reporters and ESPN talking heads have stated that there is no playoff path for any G5 in the current system. It is what it is.

As to why its even a topic of discussion anymore is because this is a thread about rankings--who is too high, too low, or just right--and your reasoning, both current and historical, behind it. One more point worth mentioning---the access bowl in the current system essentially represents the pinnacle of G5 post season participation (its basically the G5 championship). So, those access bowl games are going to be talking points for years to come for about half of FBS. The Houston/Florida St and UCF/Baylor games still get mentioned plenty in ranking discussions.

Finally, to their credit, I dont remember ever hearing an Auburn player, coach or fan use the "we didnt care" excuse. A fan of another team made that argument here.

(11-08-2018 05:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 01:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 01:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 12:06 PM)kurtrundell Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 12:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Come on, you're better than that, you know that's not what I said. First, I said that UCF won the game over Auburn, so of course that fully counts as a Peach Bowl victory. Kudos to them.

I only said that we can't draw implications about it beyond the parameters of the game, such as "this proves UCF was better than Auburn" or "this proves that UCF deserved to be in the playoffs".

Also, the obvious implication of what I said is that if a P5 and G5 have the same motivation, then of course the game 'counts' in terms of implications. E.g., if NIU played Ohio State in a playoff game, then that would be the same motivational situation for both.

If you watched the Peach Bowl last year, you'd notice that the excuses that Auburn didn't care began early in the second half when UCF's front 7 started kicking Auburns O-line's *** up and down the field. UCF dominated the second half. Only then did Auburn not "care."

Exactly. The "Auburn didnt care" narrative doesnt make much sense in a game where Auburn was actually winning halfway into the 3rd quarter. So they cared in the first 3 quarters and then lost interest? Yeah...pretty weak sauce.

What's weak is that we are almost through with the next season and this is even a topic for discussion. An undefeated Auburn squad with 3 #1 draft picks was passed over for the BCS in 2004. But that's ancient history, and it was ancient history in the Fall of 2005.

The FBS approved the CFP and its selection criteria. By that criteria UCF wasn't selected to play in the final four. Your issue is better addressed through the FBS to the CFP committee than on a message board.

But as to your "weak sauce" Auburn played without the #1 running back Pettway who was out with injuries. Auburn played without the #2 running back who appeared for a just a few plays in the game. Auburn played without our starting Corner Back because of his draft status and potential signing bonus. And we still led through 3 qtrs and finished the game inside the UCF 15 with a tying score yards away.

The fact that we led through 3 qtrs in a game where the offense had major lapses throughout the first half means nothing. If UCF was worthy of a CFP slot they should have blown us out like Georgia did in our 2nd meeting. We were in the same condition playing Georgia that we were in playing UCF and it was Georgia that was the 4th team into the CFP. The fact that you managed to pull out a win against a banged up Auburn squad wasn't the eye test for UCF claims that everyone made it out to be.

Were the Knights good? Absolutely. Could they have played with Georgia or Alabama? Sure. Would they have won against either? Highly unlikely. And since I witnessed all 3 of those teams I must say that the UCF QB and at least 2 of the receivers would have matched up just fine. But the Alabama secondary was much better than Auburn's and their D Line was deeper than ours and we had 1 man down there for the UCF game too. Georgia's running game would have been too much for UCF as Auburn managed a lead into the 3rd qtr with much much less.

So hat's off to the Knights for beating us. But, that was last year.

I actually havent argued that they definitely deserved the playoff slot this year or last. My gripe is they were sitting at number 12 last year and were the only undefeated team left in FBS. That didnt make sense then and it made even less sense after they beat Auburn---yet here we are again----UCF at 21 consecutive wins, undefeated, sitting at number 12---getting jumped week after week. And to be clear---its not as if Im the only one who is concluding that the deck is stacked. Numerous national reporters and ESPN talking heads have stated that there is no playoff path for any G5 in the current system. It is what it is.

As to why its even a topic of discussion anymore is because this is a thread about rankings--who is too high, too low, or just right--and your reasoning, both current and historical, behind it.

And it is that way by ESPN/CFP's playoff formula. NOT BY P5 EDICT! But if this nonsense continues the networks will wind up paying the P5 even more not to schedule the G5 at all. They wan't to do that already because of ratings. All they really need is an excuse.

My conclusion is that the networks are trying to force the G5 into having their own playoff. That way they could fill the early morning slot on Playoff Saturday with the G5 games. Content in a more valuable time slot that now is not adequately filled.

(11-08-2018 05:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 05:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 01:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 01:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 12:06 PM)kurtrundell Wrote:  If you watched the Peach Bowl last year, you'd notice that the excuses that Auburn didn't care began early in the second half when UCF's front 7 started kicking Auburns O-line's *** up and down the field. UCF dominated the second half. Only then did Auburn not "care."

Exactly. The "Auburn didnt care" narrative doesnt make much sense in a game where Auburn was actually winning halfway into the 3rd quarter. So they cared in the first 3 quarters and then lost interest? Yeah...pretty weak sauce.

What's weak is that we are almost through with the next season and this is even a topic for discussion. An undefeated Auburn squad with 3 #1 draft picks was passed over for the BCS in 2004. But that's ancient history, and it was ancient history in the Fall of 2005.

The FBS approved the CFP and its selection criteria. By that criteria UCF wasn't selected to play in the final four. Your issue is better addressed through the FBS to the CFP committee than on a message board.

But as to your "weak sauce" Auburn played without the #1 running back Pettway who was out with injuries. Auburn played without the #2 running back who appeared for a just a few plays in the game. Auburn played without our starting Corner Back because of his draft status and potential signing bonus. And we still led through 3 qtrs and finished the game inside the UCF 15 with a tying score yards away.

The fact that we led through 3 qtrs in a game where the offense had major lapses throughout the first half means nothing. If UCF was worthy of a CFP slot they should have blown us out like Georgia did in our 2nd meeting. We were in the same condition playing Georgia that we were in playing UCF and it was Georgia that was the 4th team into the CFP. The fact that you managed to pull out a win against a banged up Auburn squad wasn't the eye test for UCF claims that everyone made it out to be.

Were the Knights good? Absolutely. Could they have played with Georgia or Alabama? Sure. Would they have won against either? Highly unlikely. And since I witnessed all 3 of those teams I must say that the UCF QB and at least 2 of the receivers would have matched up just fine. But the Alabama secondary was much better than Auburn's and their D Line was deeper than ours and we had 1 man down there for the UCF game too. Georgia's running game would have been too much for UCF as Auburn managed a lead into the 3rd qtr with much much less.

So hat's off to the Knights for beating us. But, that was last year.

I actually havent argued that they definitely deserved the playoff slot this year or last. My gripe is they were sitting at number 12 last year and were the only undefeated team left in FBS. That didnt make sense then and it made even less sense after they beat Auburn---yet here we are again----UCF at 21 consecutive wins, undefeated, sitting at number 12---getting jumped week after week. And to be clear---its not as if Im the only one who is concluding that the deck is stacked. Numerous national reporters and ESPN talking heads have stated that there is no playoff path for any G5 in the current system. It is what it is.

As to why its even a topic of discussion anymore is because this is a thread about rankings--who is too high, too low, or just right--and your reasoning, both current and historical, behind it.

And it is that way by ESPN/CFP's playoff formula. NOT BY P5 EDICT! But if this nonsense continues the networks will wind up paying the P5 even more not to schedule the G5 at all. They wan't to do that already because of ratings. All they really need is an excuse.

My conclusion is that the networks are trying to force the G5 into having their own playoff. That way they could fill the early morning slot on Playoff Saturday with the G5 games. Content in a more valuable time slot that now is not adequately filled.

Its not so much as by P5 edict as it is by P5 preference. The CFP was designed by the P5 conference commissioners--who's primarily responsibility is protecting the interests of their respective conferences. If you will remember---the P5 commissioners really didn't want the playoff at all. ESPN wanted it. The only way the commissioners gave their reluctant consent was if it used a committee rather than a hybrid computer/poll model--well--that---and the promise of a crapload of money from ESPN.

I dont think ESPN gives a hootin holler what the selection model looks like---they just wanted a multi-round playoff. Why? Because playoff expansion in every single sport has always directly led to an increase in viewership (not only for the playoff, but for late regular season games because more teams are still in the hunt later in the year).

Thats why I dont think the networks want a P5/G5 split. That immediately eliminates playoff interest from 65 fan bases in the existing college football TV audience. Lets say thats only 15-25% of the audience---that still runs completely counter to the entire reasoning behind playoff expansion---increasing viewership. Not only that----ESPN doesnt own all the P5 games. They split them with FOX, CBS, and NBC. ESPN has a lot of slots they will have to fill with G5 inventory as well. A P5/G5 split devalues that G5 inventory and turns it into FCS inventory. That dosnt really help ESPN.

I just think the current system was a the result of the P5 commissioners protecting their conferences (which is thier job) and being reluctant to expand the playoff at all (thats why we only went to 4). I dont think it was a big screw you to the G5. In fact, the P5 commissioners did give the G5 a guaranteed bowl slot and, from what Ive heard, a larger share of the money than the G5 was actually expecting.

I think the current system has an issue with how to compare the top of the G5 with the best of the P5, and I dont think that will ever be solved until the playoff is expanded to 8 teams in 7 years or so.

(11-08-2018 05:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I actually havent argued that they definitely deserved the playoff slot this year or last. My gripe is they were sitting at number 12 last year and were the only undefeated team left in FBS. That didnt make sense then and it made even less sense after they beat Auburn ...

Well, they weren't ranked #12 after they beat Auburn, they moved up to #7 in both of the final polls. And in Massey they finished #9. So beating Auburn did move them in to the top 10.

(11-08-2018 06:05 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 05:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 05:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 01:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 01:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Exactly. The "Auburn didnt care" narrative doesnt make much sense in a game where Auburn was actually winning halfway into the 3rd quarter. So they cared in the first 3 quarters and then lost interest? Yeah...pretty weak sauce.

What's weak is that we are almost through with the next season and this is even a topic for discussion. An undefeated Auburn squad with 3 #1 draft picks was passed over for the BCS in 2004. But that's ancient history, and it was ancient history in the Fall of 2005.

The FBS approved the CFP and its selection criteria. By that criteria UCF wasn't selected to play in the final four. Your issue is better addressed through the FBS to the CFP committee than on a message board.

But as to your "weak sauce" Auburn played without the #1 running back Pettway who was out with injuries. Auburn played without the #2 running back who appeared for a just a few plays in the game. Auburn played without our starting Corner Back because of his draft status and potential signing bonus. And we still led through 3 qtrs and finished the game inside the UCF 15 with a tying score yards away.

The fact that we led through 3 qtrs in a game where the offense had major lapses throughout the first half means nothing. If UCF was worthy of a CFP slot they should have blown us out like Georgia did in our 2nd meeting. We were in the same condition playing Georgia that we were in playing UCF and it was Georgia that was the 4th team into the CFP. The fact that you managed to pull out a win against a banged up Auburn squad wasn't the eye test for UCF claims that everyone made it out to be.

Were the Knights good? Absolutely. Could they have played with Georgia or Alabama? Sure. Would they have won against either? Highly unlikely. And since I witnessed all 3 of those teams I must say that the UCF QB and at least 2 of the receivers would have matched up just fine. But the Alabama secondary was much better than Auburn's and their D Line was deeper than ours and we had 1 man down there for the UCF game too. Georgia's running game would have been too much for UCF as Auburn managed a lead into the 3rd qtr with much much less.

So hat's off to the Knights for beating us. But, that was last year.

I actually havent argued that they definitely deserved the playoff slot this year or last. My gripe is they were sitting at number 12 last year and were the only undefeated team left in FBS. That didnt make sense then and it made even less sense after they beat Auburn---yet here we are again----UCF at 21 consecutive wins, undefeated, sitting at number 12---getting jumped week after week. And to be clear---its not as if Im the only one who is concluding that the deck is stacked. Numerous national reporters and ESPN talking heads have stated that there is no playoff path for any G5 in the current system. It is what it is.

As to why its even a topic of discussion anymore is because this is a thread about rankings--who is too high, too low, or just right--and your reasoning, both current and historical, behind it.

And it is that way by ESPN/CFP's playoff formula. NOT BY P5 EDICT! But if this nonsense continues the networks will wind up paying the P5 even more not to schedule the G5 at all. They wan't to do that already because of ratings. All they really need is an excuse.

My conclusion is that the networks are trying to force the G5 into having their own playoff. That way they could fill the early morning slot on Playoff Saturday with the G5 games. Content in a more valuable time slot that now is not adequately filled.

Its not so much as by P5 edict as it is by P5 preference. The CFP was designed by the P5 conference commissioners--who's primarily responsibility is protecting the interests of their respective conferences. If you will remember---the P5 commissioners really didn't want the playoff at all. ESPN wanted it. The only way the commissioners gave their reluctant consent was if it used a committee rather than a hybrid computer/poll model--well--that---and the promise of a crapload of money from ESPN.

I dont think ESPN gives a hootin holler what the selection model looks like---they just wanted a multi-round playoff. Why? Because playoff expansion in every single sport has always directly led to an increase in viewership (not only for the playoff, but for late regular season games because more teams are still in the hunt later in the year).

Thats why I dont think the networks want a P5/G5 split. That immediately eliminates playoff interest from 65 fan bases in the existing college football TV audience. Lets say thats only 15-25% of the audience---that still runs completely counter to the entire reasoning behind playoff expansion---increasing viewership. Not only that----ESPN doesnt own all the P5 games. They split them with FOX, CBS, and NBC. ESPN has a lot of slots they will have to fill with G5 inventory as well. A P5/G5 split devalues that G5 inventory and turns it into FCS inventory. That dosnt really help ESPN.

I just think the current system was a the result of the P5 commissioners protecting their conferences (which is thier job) and being reluctant to expand the playoff at all (thats why we only went to 4). I dont think it was a big screw you to the G5. In fact, the P5 commissioners did give the G5 a guaranteed bowl slot and, from what Ive heard, a larger share of the money than the G5 was actually expecting.

I think the current system has an issue with how to compare the top of the G5 with the best of the P5, and I dont think that will ever be solved until the playoff is expanded to 8 teams in 7 years or so.

And you would be wrong. Who are the commissioners? Mostly former contract attorneys for sports rights that worked for the TV industry. They've always worked more for the networks than the conferences with Delaney finally crossing the line to challenge ESPN. It's all a network ploy that the commissioners went along with for (drum roll please) more guaranteed revenue which pleased the Presidents they allegedly work for.

Why a CFP? More eyes than hodge podge bowls. Why no Baylor or T.C.U.? Ohio State draws more national attention. Who cares about that? The network! The CFP is a system for the benefit of the Networks who were able to get the commissioners to go along and adopt the networks suggestions thereby distancing the network from culpability.

Time to grow up and quit attacking the decoys while the hunter has you in his crosshairs! How? Because the playoff won't expand, but the upper tier will only distance itself from the rest because of the revenue promised by........the networks! But you just keep talking about that 8 team playoff. It's a lot like being a Cubs fan. Wait til next year!

(11-08-2018 06:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 06:05 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 05:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 05:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 01:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  What's weak is that we are almost through with the next season and this is even a topic for discussion. An undefeated Auburn squad with 3 #1 draft picks was passed over for the BCS in 2004. But that's ancient history, and it was ancient history in the Fall of 2005.

The FBS approved the CFP and its selection criteria. By that criteria UCF wasn't selected to play in the final four. Your issue is better addressed through the FBS to the CFP committee than on a message board.

But as to your "weak sauce" Auburn played without the #1 running back Pettway who was out with injuries. Auburn played without the #2 running back who appeared for a just a few plays in the game. Auburn played without our starting Corner Back because of his draft status and potential signing bonus. And we still led through 3 qtrs and finished the game inside the UCF 15 with a tying score yards away.

The fact that we led through 3 qtrs in a game where the offense had major lapses throughout the first half means nothing. If UCF was worthy of a CFP slot they should have blown us out like Georgia did in our 2nd meeting. We were in the same condition playing Georgia that we were in playing UCF and it was Georgia that was the 4th team into the CFP. The fact that you managed to pull out a win against a banged up Auburn squad wasn't the eye test for UCF claims that everyone made it out to be.

Were the Knights good? Absolutely. Could they have played with Georgia or Alabama? Sure. Would they have won against either? Highly unlikely. And since I witnessed all 3 of those teams I must say that the UCF QB and at least 2 of the receivers would have matched up just fine. But the Alabama secondary was much better than Auburn's and their D Line was deeper than ours and we had 1 man down there for the UCF game too. Georgia's running game would have been too much for UCF as Auburn managed a lead into the 3rd qtr with much much less.

So hat's off to the Knights for beating us. But, that was last year.

I actually havent argued that they definitely deserved the playoff slot this year or last. My gripe is they were sitting at number 12 last year and were the only undefeated team left in FBS. That didnt make sense then and it made even less sense after they beat Auburn---yet here we are again----UCF at 21 consecutive wins, undefeated, sitting at number 12---getting jumped week after week. And to be clear---its not as if Im the only one who is concluding that the deck is stacked. Numerous national reporters and ESPN talking heads have stated that there is no playoff path for any G5 in the current system. It is what it is.

As to why its even a topic of discussion anymore is because this is a thread about rankings--who is too high, too low, or just right--and your reasoning, both current and historical, behind it.

And it is that way by ESPN/CFP's playoff formula. NOT BY P5 EDICT! But if this nonsense continues the networks will wind up paying the P5 even more not to schedule the G5 at all. They wan't to do that already because of ratings. All they really need is an excuse.

My conclusion is that the networks are trying to force the G5 into having their own playoff. That way they could fill the early morning slot on Playoff Saturday with the G5 games. Content in a more valuable time slot that now is not adequately filled.

Its not so much as by P5 edict as it is by P5 preference. The CFP was designed by the P5 conference commissioners--who's primarily responsibility is protecting the interests of their respective conferences. If you will remember---the P5 commissioners really didn't want the playoff at all. ESPN wanted it. The only way the commissioners gave their reluctant consent was if it used a committee rather than a hybrid computer/poll model--well--that---and the promise of a crapload of money from ESPN.

I dont think ESPN gives a hootin holler what the selection model looks like---they just wanted a multi-round playoff. Why? Because playoff expansion in every single sport has always directly led to an increase in viewership (not only for the playoff, but for late regular season games because more teams are still in the hunt later in the year).

Thats why I dont think the networks want a P5/G5 split. That immediately eliminates playoff interest from 65 fan bases in the existing college football TV audience. Lets say thats only 15-25% of the audience---that still runs completely counter to the entire reasoning behind playoff expansion---increasing viewership. Not only that----ESPN doesnt own all the P5 games. They split them with FOX, CBS, and NBC. ESPN has a lot of slots they will have to fill with G5 inventory as well. A P5/G5 split devalues that G5 inventory and turns it into FCS inventory. That dosnt really help ESPN.

I just think the current system was a the result of the P5 commissioners protecting their conferences (which is thier job) and being reluctant to expand the playoff at all (thats why we only went to 4). I dont think it was a big screw you to the G5. In fact, the P5 commissioners did give the G5 a guaranteed bowl slot and, from what Ive heard, a larger share of the money than the G5 was actually expecting.

I think the current system has an issue with how to compare the top of the G5 with the best of the P5, and I dont think that will ever be solved until the playoff is expanded to 8 teams in 7 years or so.

And you would be wrong. Who are the commissioners? Mostly former contract attorneys for sports rights that worked for the TV industry. They've always worked more for the networks than the conferences with Delaney finally crossing the line to challenge ESPN. It's all a network ploy that the commissioners went along with for (drum roll please) more guaranteed revenue which pleased the Presidents they allegedly work for.

Why a CFP? More eyes than hodge podge bowls. Why no Baylor or T.C.U.? Ohio State draws more national attention. Who cares about that? The network! The CFP is a system for the benefit of the Networks who were able to get the commissioners to go along and adopt the networks suggestions thereby distancing the network from culpability.

Time to grow up and quit attacking the decoys while the hunter has you in his crosshairs! How? Because the playoff won't expand, but the upper tier will only distance itself from the rest because of the revenue promised by........the networks! But you just keep talking about that 8 team playoff. It's a lot like being a Cubs fan. Wait til next year!

Well, I was an Astros and an Oilers fan since childhood---so until last year, that run of futility was darn close to being a Cubs fan.

We will see. The playoff expanded from 2 to 4 (after it was said it would never expand). If 4 makes more money than two--I suspect, like every other major sport out there, 8 will make more money than 4. So, yes, call me simplistic and naive if you like, but I do expect an 8-team playoff is likely in the next version of the CFP. Perhaps it will expand and the G5 will not be included---admittedly, thats entirely possible. That said, I tend to think it will be more inclusive because that has always led to greater viewership which translates to more money.

As for the network plans for disemboweling the G5---who knows? What I know is there is absolutely not one thing I can do about it except hope you're not right.

(11-08-2018 06:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Time to grow up and quit attacking the decoys while the hunter has you in his crosshairs! How? Because the playoff won't expand, but the upper tier will only distance itself from the rest because of the revenue promised by........the networks! But you just keep talking about that 8 team playoff. It's a lot like being a Cubs fan. Wait til next year!

Well in fairness, next year did finally come for the Cubs.

Also, while none of us knows what will happen in the future, the trend has been towards more playoffs. The last 25 years we've gone from no playoff to a two-team playoff to a four-team playoff, so would it really be a shock if in 2025 an eight-team playoff is announced? I don't think so.

(11-08-2018 07:06 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 06:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Time to grow up and quit attacking the decoys while the hunter has you in his crosshairs! How? Because the playoff won't expand, but the upper tier will only distance itself from the rest because of the revenue promised by........the networks! But you just keep talking about that 8 team playoff. It's a lot like being a Cubs fan. Wait til next year!

Well in fairness, next year did finally come for the Cubs.

Also, while none of us knows what will happen in the future, the trend has been towards more playoffs. The last 25 years we've gone from no playoff to a two-team playoff to a four-team playoff, so would it really be a shock if in 2025 an eight-team playoff is announced? I don't think so.

The playoffs will fit what the networks want. If the networks want to gradually move away from the bowls then we might expand to 8. But as long as the bowls are with us there will be no expansion further of the playoffs. Too many oxen get gored at that point.

I suppose that if 4 more bowls were involved you might be able to make that move, but then what do you have but an attendance crisis for your biggest event. I strongly suspect that the only way it could expand to 8 would be with campus sites involved for the first, and possibly the second rounds. I can't see anyone's alumni base willing to make 3 straight big dollar road trips in succession.

So Quo, as long as ESPN hold the bowl contract they will be the last to want to expand the playoffs. I think they and the conferences would be much more likely to move to a Champs Only format for the P4 and use the CCG's as the quarter finals.

If FOX and ESPN are cooperating on anything they may be trying to sew up the CBS contract with the SEC (likely with FOX) and then they would own all of the rights to PAC (minus T3), the Big 10 (minus 49% of the T3), the SEC and ACC and still would split the rights to the Big 12.

That puts them in position to make a quick transition to a champs only format if they broker out the present Big 12 members (possibly minus Baylor) plus Notre Dame to get there. It also positions them for a transition if the Alston case is lost and we move to pay for play. And by brokering out the Big 12 they get to renew all existing contracts bypassing the FAANG potential fiasco in 2024. So we'll see. But 4 is what they wanted and the SEC was the excuse to get there. More money for all, new contracts, and a champs only and they don't need more than 4.

That way each conference is good to go, every president gets more revenue for their school, and the better paying bowls get better P only match ups for their ratings and all investments pay off.

(11-08-2018 12:06 PM)kurtrundell Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 12:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 11:50 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(11-07-2018 09:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Koi

(11-07-2018 04:54 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I think you can draw the exact same implications that you can from 2 equal teams where one wins because they were more motivated. Which means, basically it's just like any other game.

I disagree. IMO you can't e.g. draw the same implications from UCF vs Auburn as you could between say Clemson vs Alabama, where both teams had the same goals and motivation. The latter is a much better indicator that the result of the game is strong evidence about who was better and how the winner would fare against teams similar to the one they beat.

Ok, so if a P5 team loses to a G5 team it doesn't count because they weren't motivated. Sure.

Come on, you're better than that, you know that's not what I said. First, I said that UCF won the game over Auburn, so of course that fully counts as a Peach Bowl victory. Kudos to them.

I only said that we can't draw implications about it beyond the parameters of the game, such as "this proves UCF was better than Auburn" or "this proves that UCF deserved to be in the playoffs".

Also, the obvious implication of what I said is that if a P5 and G5 have the same motivation, then of course the game 'counts' in terms of implications. E.g., if NIU played Ohio State in a playoff game, then that would be the same motivational situation for both.

If you watched the Peach Bowl last year, you'd notice that the excuses that Auburn didn't care began early in the second half when UCF's front 7 started kicking Auburns O-line's *** up and down the field. UCF dominated the second half. Only then did Auburn not "care."

@ "kicking Auburn's O-line's ass"

UCF had 6 sacks against Auburn.

Austin Bryant of Clemson had 4 all by himself

We had 11 total.

THAT'S what a butt kicking looks like

(11-08-2018 09:52 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 12:06 PM)kurtrundell Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 12:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 11:50 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(11-07-2018 09:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Koi
I disagree. IMO you can't e.g. draw the same implications from UCF vs Auburn as you could between say Clemson vs Alabama, where both teams had the same goals and motivation. The latter is a much better indicator that the result of the game is strong evidence about who was better and how the winner would fare against teams similar to the one they beat.

Ok, so if a P5 team loses to a G5 team it doesn't count because they weren't motivated. Sure.

Come on, you're better than that, you know that's not what I said. First, I said that UCF won the game over Auburn, so of course that fully counts as a Peach Bowl victory. Kudos to them.

I only said that we can't draw implications about it beyond the parameters of the game, such as "this proves UCF was better than Auburn" or "this proves that UCF deserved to be in the playoffs".

Also, the obvious implication of what I said is that if a P5 and G5 have the same motivation, then of course the game 'counts' in terms of implications. E.g., if NIU played Ohio State in a playoff game, then that would be the same motivational situation for both.

If you watched the Peach Bowl last year, you'd notice that the excuses that Auburn didn't care began early in the second half when UCF's front 7 started kicking Auburns O-line's *** up and down the field. UCF dominated the second half. Only then did Auburn not "care."

@ "kicking Auburn's O-line's ass"

UCF had 6 sacks against Auburn.

Austin Bryant of Clemson had 4 all by himself

We had 11 total.

THAT'S what a butt kicking looks like

While we definitely lost to Clemson in a clearer fashion the Auburn D had a good night too. An 8 point spread in the opening game of the season is hardly a butt kicking. And to Clemson's favor here we were at full speed in every position in that game. We were the walking dead by the time we played the Peach Bowl and without 3 star players and one DLineman and had a backup center in the game who moved over from guard and still almost tied it at the end.

No butt kickings, but at least in the Clemson game we were beaten. In the UCF game we lost. There's a difference. I wonder if there will ever be another P5 school who winds up playing 4 games against the final four field (Clemson 1, Alabama 1, Georgia 2) and goes 2-2 in those 4 games?

(11-04-2018 06:26 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-04-2018 04:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-04-2018 03:10 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Army, UAB inching into top 30.

Syracuse/Fresno/USU in top 16!

Wazzu should be above LSU and Ohio St.

Do you think Washington State would beat L.S.U. or Ohio State? I don't. Both have defenses that would shut them down. I think that will happen when they play Washington.

I thought it was interesting both polls had Miss. St. ahead of Florida with identical records.
Both lost to UK
Florida lost to Georgia
MSU lost to LSU
MSU lost to Florida
Florida lost to Mizzou
Florida beat ranked MSU and LSU.
MSU beat unranked A&M and Auburn.

The point in the season matters. Florida has recent, Oct. 27 and Nov. 3, back to back losses per games vs UGA and Mizzou. They are fortunate to still be ranked.

(11-08-2018 12:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 11:50 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(11-07-2018 09:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Koi

(11-07-2018 04:54 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(11-07-2018 04:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  No question, they lost. But the lack of motivation is a reason to not draw implications about it beyond the parameters of the game.

I think you can draw the exact same implications that you can from 2 equal teams where one wins because they were more motivated. Which means, basically it's just like any other game.

I disagree. IMO you can't e.g. draw the same implications from UCF vs Auburn as you could between say Clemson vs Alabama, where both teams had the same goals and motivation. The latter is a much better indicator that the result of the game is strong evidence about who was better and how the winner would fare against teams similar to the one they beat.

Ok, so if a P5 team loses to a G5 team it doesn't count because they weren't motivated. Sure.

Come on, you're better than that, you know that's not what I said. First, I said that UCF won the game over Auburn, so of course that fully counts as a Peach Bowl victory. Kudos to them.

I only said that we can't draw implications about it beyond the parameters of the game, such as "this proves UCF was better than Auburn" or "this proves that UCF deserved to be in the playoffs".

Also, the obvious implication of what I said is that if a P5 and G5 have the same motivation, then of course the game 'counts' in terms of implications. E.g., if NIU played Ohio State in a playoff game, then that would be the same motivational situation for both.

They were better than Auburn on that day, that's all you can say about that or any other game between 2 teams. I wouldn't say it necessarily meant that they deserved to be in the top 4. But it shows that they might have deserved to be in the Top 4.

I wouldn't say they deserved to be in a "playoff" because they don't have a playoff, IMO. If it was 8 teams you might call it that.

(11-09-2018 10:30 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 12:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 11:50 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(11-07-2018 09:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Koi

(11-07-2018 04:54 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I think you can draw the exact same implications that you can from 2 equal teams where one wins because they were more motivated. Which means, basically it's just like any other game.

I disagree. IMO you can't e.g. draw the same implications from UCF vs Auburn as you could between say Clemson vs Alabama, where both teams had the same goals and motivation. The latter is a much better indicator that the result of the game is strong evidence about who was better and how the winner would fare against teams similar to the one they beat.

Ok, so if a P5 team loses to a G5 team it doesn't count because they weren't motivated. Sure.

Come on, you're better than that, you know that's not what I said. First, I said that UCF won the game over Auburn, so of course that fully counts as a Peach Bowl victory. Kudos to them.

I only said that we can't draw implications about it beyond the parameters of the game, such as "this proves UCF was better than Auburn" or "this proves that UCF deserved to be in the playoffs".

Also, the obvious implication of what I said is that if a P5 and G5 have the same motivation, then of course the game 'counts' in terms of implications. E.g., if NIU played Ohio State in a playoff game, then that would be the same motivational situation for both.

They were better than Auburn on that day, that's all you can say about that or any other game between 2 teams. I wouldn't say it necessarily meant that they deserved to be in the top 4. But it shows that they might have deserved to be in the Top 4.

Well, I guess at a trivial level, any win shows that a team 'might' have deserved something. Notre Dame beating LSU in the Cap One Bowl shows they might have deserved to be in the Top 4, etc.

But if we take 'might' seriously, then you have to suggest who they might deserved to be in instead of. You can't add one team to the Top 4 without taking out an existing team. So e.g. if I say that Ohio State winning the Cotton Bowl or Wisconsin winning the Orange Bowl or UCF winning the Peach Bowl or Notre Dame winning the Cap One Bowl etc. means they might have deserved a Top 4 spot, who am I saying they might have been more deserving than?

Alabama? Clemson? Oklahoma? Georgia?

I can't honestly say I could replace any of those four with any of the aforementioned bowl winners.

As for what gets called a playoff, IMO ideally we wouldn't have playoffs. The best way to determine a champ is over a long regular season where every team plays the same schedule and teams play each other at least twice, home and away. E.g., like the baseball pennants used to be decided before divisional play, and how the soccer leagues over in Europe do it. If e.g. the Yankees win more games then the Red Sox over a 162 game schedule that gives us far more confidence that they really were better than the results of a short series does, and even moreso than one game, as in a playoff.

But of course we can't have that in college football.