(09-22-2019 06:39 PM)rtaylor Wrote:  

(09-22-2019 06:13 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(09-22-2019 05:05 PM)rtaylor Wrote:  

(09-22-2019 03:29 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(09-22-2019 02:30 PM)panama Wrote:  Syracuse fan talking Natty's....


Sure, I'll hang up and listen.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

At least Syracuse has championships in both revenue sports. Its a little different than a Georgia State fan talking championships.

I miss throttling Sorry Cuse every year.

All that throttling got you a permanent position in the G5. Have fun.

Lot of good it seems to be doing for you guys.

But La Familia man!

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

(09-22-2019 06:39 PM)rtaylor Wrote:  

(09-22-2019 06:13 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(09-22-2019 05:05 PM)rtaylor Wrote:  

(09-22-2019 03:29 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(09-22-2019 02:30 PM)panama Wrote:  Syracuse fan talking Natty's....


Sure, I'll hang up and listen.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

At least Syracuse has championships in both revenue sports. Its a little different than a Georgia State fan talking championships.

I miss throttling Sorry Cuse every year.

All that throttling got you a permanent position in the G5. Have fun.

Lot of good it seems to be doing for you guys.

It is doing a lot of good for SU coming off a 10 win season and its still possible to get another 10 win season this year as unlikely as it may seem at the moment. We just had an over capacity crowd last week for a football game. This season marks the largest increase in season football ticket sales. Since its last year in the BE SU has gone to a couple of final fours. SU alumni has been making donations like crazy, including a large $25 million donation just yesterday to the SU AD, which may put SU over $120 million for its athletic dept. revenues. All of this would not have happened if SU were stuck with Cincy in the G5. So being a member of the P5 has been very good for SU.

(09-22-2019 06:13 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(09-22-2019 05:05 PM)rtaylor Wrote:  

(09-22-2019 03:29 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(09-22-2019 02:30 PM)panama Wrote:  

(09-22-2019 02:29 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  At least their school has a natty in one of the two sports that matter.

No one outside of AAC circles and sportswriters looking for "hits" seriously believed UCF won a National Championship in 2017.

Syracuse fan talking Natty's....


Sure, I'll hang up and listen.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

At least Syracuse has championships in both revenue sports. Its a little different than a Georgia State fan talking championships.

I miss throttling Sorry Cuse every year.

All that throttling got you a permanent position in the G5. Have fun.

I doubt Cincy's status as a G5 school is permanent. They are the next most likely team taken by the ACC or Big 12 if either has to back fill from losing a school. And that's about as good a position as they could be in right now as the B1G SEC and Pac 12 aren't taking any AAC schools under any realistic scenario.

Your argument is more along the lines of “who would I be wise to bet on: UGA or UCF?”. It’s a valid question that probably goes the way Vegas thinks but is in no way a suitable way to determine who gets a chance to play for a title. You need to WIN to WIN a championship.


If you win all your games you deserve a shot to prove how good you are.

Full stop.

(09-22-2019 08:17 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(09-22-2019 06:13 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(09-22-2019 05:05 PM)rtaylor Wrote:  

(09-22-2019 03:29 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(09-22-2019 02:30 PM)panama Wrote:  Syracuse fan talking Natty's....


Sure, I'll hang up and listen.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

At least Syracuse has championships in both revenue sports. Its a little different than a Georgia State fan talking championships.

I miss throttling Sorry Cuse every year.

All that throttling got you a permanent position in the G5. Have fun.

I doubt Cincy's status as a G5 school is permanent. They are the next most likely team taken by the ACC or Big 12 if either has to back fill from losing a school. And that's about as good a position as they could be in right now as the B1G SEC and Pac 12 aren't taking any AAC schools under any realistic scenario.

I can actually agree with your point, But its going to be a long time before any ACC school leaves the ACC, if ever. Who knows if the current CFP will even be around then? Ten, twelve years ago, we had no idea that the BCS wouldnt be around today. I do believe that Cincy will be the next program called up. I dont think that a conference will have to lose a program for that call up. A conference could simply be looking to expand and seeking new markets to get to 16. Or in the case of the B12 expand to 12.

(09-21-2019 09:38 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  I'm pretty sure if I said what I want to say, I'd end up with more than a "warning."

So, in the best southern tradition, "Oh bless your heart."

He says what most P5 fans think.

(09-22-2019 01:03 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-22-2019 09:15 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  If you were actually interested in making a stronger point, you’d use something like Top 50 in S&P+ or something rather than P5 vs G5. Bet you’d probably get similar results too.

Being P5 doesn’t make a team good. Being good at football makes a team good. Groundbreaking stuff here, I know.

But that wasn’t the real point of your post and everyone knows it.

If i would get similar results using SP then i wouldn't be making a stronger argument.

Like it or not, P5 and G5 are distinctions people make, so its a basis for comparison. And while some G5 are better than some P5, as a category, P5 are better.

24-0 vs 4-2 is not a coincidence.

You'd be making a stronger point because you wouldn't have a weaker distinction as your basis of comparison.

You are missing the point. P5 and G5 is a legitimate grouping. As a whole, P5 teams will be better than G5 teams. But we have an even more accurate system than P5 and G5 for deciding who a quality opponent is. So why in the world wouldn't you use that?

You just can't help yourself.

(09-22-2019 06:46 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(09-22-2019 05:12 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(09-22-2019 04:29 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(09-22-2019 03:46 PM)panama Wrote:  

(09-22-2019 03:29 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  At least Syracuse has championships in both revenue sports. Its a little different than a Georgia State fan talking championships.

We have had football 10 years. FBS 5. What's everyone else's excuse?

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Winning championships are tough...play 9-10 P5 programs every year and see.

We played WMU yesterday and they hung tough but they also lost their two best offensive players and two other big contributers in the process. Attrition is real.

The Biggest schools stockpile kids on the 2nd and 3rd team who would start for most of the other 115 teams out there. UCF would've lost at least 2-3 games in most P5 leagues in 2017 with that team. Injuries would've happened at a higher clip and they don't have the depth of Bama, Clemson, Notre Dame, Georgia, Ohio State, etc...

They are a nice story of a new program building but they were not a playoff team...I'd have no issue saying they were a Top 10 team in 2017 though.

1. If we were in a P5 conference, we'd recruit at the P5 level.
What does this have to do with anything? Your teams are your teams, this isn't affirmative action where you get 10 extra points added to your games
2. The AAC is occupying the same competitive space as the Big East was during the BCS era post-2005. We have 12 teams versus 8, so the exact comparison is a little difficult and probably results in a slightly easier slate, but the quality at the top of the conference is about the same. The only difference is that an arbitrary label has been assigned and the media narrative is following that. I'd absolutely put the Top 8 in the AAC up against the Top 8 of the Big East. But for that arbitrary label change, UCF would have played for the national title at least in 2017, maybe not last year with 2 undefeated teams from higher conferences (see Cincy's undefeated season).

UCF vs WVU -> slight edge, WVU, I think their line play was better than what we've had, but that's the RichRod teams; Stewart on, I'd say UCF
Houston vs UL -> tie, very similar levels of success and big wins
Memphis vs Pitt -> UM, Stache had a few decent teams, but Pitt was pretty mediocre
Navy vs Rutgers -> Schiano years, adv Rutgers; post Schiano, adv Navy)
Temple vs Syracuse -> adv Temple, Cuse was total garbage most of those years
Cincy = Cincy
USF = USF
UConn = UConn (dug their own grave while still an AQ team with bad coaching hires)
These arbitrary diatribes are cute. BTW, Cuse was 18-1 over the last 19 games versus Temple and beat them the only time we played them post 2005. Cuse is 4-0 in Bowl wins versus P5 teams post 2005. Temple is 0-3 versus P5 teams in Bowls (2 of which are ACC teams) during the same period. The BCS Big East and the 2013+ ACC has been better than any league UCF has been in at the time. You can't always assume a 7-5 AAC team is better than a 4 or 5 win ACC team. The bottom of the AAC is generally filled with lay ups which pad your wins.
Anyway, yesterday kind of reminded me of 2006 WVU with Pat White shitting the bed against Wannstache's Pitt. We aren't as good as that 2006 WVU team, but the point is Pitt gets up for one big game a year and nothing else; that's been their MO for a long time now.

Diatribes/commentaries aside, here's what #1 has to do with anything. I am a 4 star recruit in Texas, and I have offers from both Houston and Iowa State. Who am I more likely to pick? The answer is Iowa State. Even though I won't be going to college in Texas, I will still be able to visit Texas when playing road teams against Texas based Big 12 teams and there's a higher chance that NFL scouts will see me playing on tv vs playing @ Houston, which could be a bit of a gamble.

2019 UCF is not 2018 UCF is not 2017 UCF.

What exactly determines if a team is worthy of the CFP? It certainly isn’t winning, UCF and Boise State have both disproven that narrative.

Is it who you beat? It may be the root of the problem but you can only play who will schedule you. I don’t exactly see P5 programs lining up to visit The Bounce House in Orlando.

Is it your conference? Put UCF in The Big 12 the last three seasons and there is no question, with their record, they make the CFP.

The reality is the media determines who makes the playoffs and who doesn’t. Does anyone really believe that an undefeated Louisville team gets in over a 12-1 Alabama team? Name recognition sells tickets, it gets fans to tune in.

There are only so many CFP “eligible” teams in each P5 conference regardless of whatever the system tries to sell us. These teams are playing for a shot at the playoffs:

Clemson
Florida State
Miami
Virginia Tech
Notre Dame
Alabama
Auburn
Florida
Georgia
LSU
Oklahoma
Texas
Ohio State
Michigan
Michigan State
Penn State
Wisconsin
USC
UCLA
Oregon

These are the teams playing for a football national championship every fall. Everyone else is simply playing for the best bowl they can get. Sure the list changes in early 80’s Pitt or BYU would be there and Oregon or Florida wouldn’t.

These are the teams the media promotes. According to the media these are the teams we are supposed to care about. Everyone else doesn’t matter.

(09-23-2019 07:22 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  What exactly determines if a team is worthy of the CFP? It certainly isn’t winning, UCF and Boise State have both disproven that narrative.

Is it who you beat? It may be the root of the problem but you can only play who will schedule you. I don’t exactly see P5 programs lining up to visit The Bounce House in Orlando.

Is it your conference? Put UCF in The Big 12 the last three seasons and there is no question, with their record, they make the CFP.

The reality is the media determines who makes the playoffs and who doesn’t. Does anyone really believe that an undefeated Louisville team gets in over a 12-1 Alabama team? Name recognition sells tickets, it gets fans to tune in.

There are only so many CFP “eligible” teams in each P5 conference regardless of whatever the system tries to sell us. These teams are playing for a shot at the playoffs:

Clemson
Florida State
Miami
Virginia Tech
Notre Dame
Alabama
Auburn
Florida
Georgia
LSU
Oklahoma
Texas
Ohio State
Michigan
Michigan State
Penn State
Wisconsin
USC
UCLA
Oregon

These are the teams playing for a football national championship every fall. Everyone else is simply playing for the best bowl they can get. Sure the list changes in early 80’s Pitt or BYU would be there and Oregon or Florida wouldn’t.

These are the teams the media promotes. According to the media these are the teams we are supposed to care about. Everyone else doesn’t matter.

You are exactly on the money. ESPN set up the CFP committee so that they could control who got into the major bowls for viewership purposes. They did not like it being out of their hands with the BCS computers dictating. There's honestly no defense of the committee approach vs the unbiased computers.

(09-22-2019 06:47 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(09-22-2019 05:12 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(09-22-2019 04:29 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(09-22-2019 03:46 PM)panama Wrote:  

(09-22-2019 03:29 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  At least Syracuse has championships in both revenue sports. Its a little different than a Georgia State fan talking championships.

We have had football 10 years. FBS 5. What's everyone else's excuse?

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Winning championships are tough...play 9-10 P5 programs every year and see.

We played WMU yesterday and they hung tough but they also lost their two best offensive players and two other big contributers in the process. Attrition is real.

The Biggest schools stockpile kids on the 2nd and 3rd team who would start for most of the other 115 teams out there. UCF would've lost at least 2-3 games in most P5 leagues in 2017 with that team. Injuries would've happened at a higher clip and they don't have the depth of Bama, Clemson, Notre Dame, Georgia, Ohio State, etc...

They are a nice story of a new program building but they were not a playoff team...I'd have no issue saying they were a Top 10 team in 2017 though.

1. If we were in a P5 conference, we'd recruit at the P5 level.
2. The AAC is occupying the same competitive space as the Big East was during the BCS era post-2005. We have 12 teams versus 8, so the exact comparison is a little difficult and probably results in a slightly easier slate, but the quality at the top of the conference is about the same. The only difference is that an arbitrary label has been assigned and the media narrative is following that. I'd absolutely put the Top 8 in the AAC up against the Top 8 of the Big East. But for that arbitrary label change, UCF would have played for the national title at least in 2017, maybe not last year with 2 undefeated teams from higher conferences (see Cincy's undefeated season).

UCF vs WVU -> slight edge, WVU, I think their line play was better than what we've had, but that's the RichRod teams; Stewart on, I'd say UCF
Houston vs UL -> tie, very similar levels of success and big wins
Memphis vs Pitt -> UM, Stache had a few decent teams, but Pitt was pretty mediocre
Navy vs Rutgers -> Schiano years, adv Rutgers; post Schiano, adv Navy
Temple vs Syracuse -> adv Temple, Cuse was total garbage most of those years
Cincy = Cincy
USF = USF
UConn = UConn (dug their own grave while still an AQ team with bad coaching hires)

Anyway, yesterday kind of reminded me of 2006 WVU with Pat White shitting the bed against Wannstache's Pitt. We aren't as good as that 2006 WVU team, but the point is Pitt gets up for one big game a year and nothing else; that's been their MO for a long time now.

We have already done this comparison of the BE and the current AAC. And it was no contest. The AAC has not been close to the BE from 2005. And rather doing a comparison based on your perception, BCS data and computers, wins and losses, team and conference rankings and SOS were what were used. Even comparisons against the MWC were used. There is no comparison.

Please point me in the direction of this unbiased, peer-reviewed quantitative study.

(09-23-2019 09:03 AM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(09-22-2019 06:47 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(09-22-2019 05:12 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(09-22-2019 04:29 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(09-22-2019 03:46 PM)panama Wrote:  We have had football 10 years. FBS 5. What's everyone else's excuse?

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Winning championships are tough...play 9-10 P5 programs every year and see.

We played WMU yesterday and they hung tough but they also lost their two best offensive players and two other big contributers in the process. Attrition is real.

The Biggest schools stockpile kids on the 2nd and 3rd team who would start for most of the other 115 teams out there. UCF would've lost at least 2-3 games in most P5 leagues in 2017 with that team. Injuries would've happened at a higher clip and they don't have the depth of Bama, Clemson, Notre Dame, Georgia, Ohio State, etc...

They are a nice story of a new program building but they were not a playoff team...I'd have no issue saying they were a Top 10 team in 2017 though.

1. If we were in a P5 conference, we'd recruit at the P5 level.
2. The AAC is occupying the same competitive space as the Big East was during the BCS era post-2005. We have 12 teams versus 8, so the exact comparison is a little difficult and probably results in a slightly easier slate, but the quality at the top of the conference is about the same. The only difference is that an arbitrary label has been assigned and the media narrative is following that. I'd absolutely put the Top 8 in the AAC up against the Top 8 of the Big East. But for that arbitrary label change, UCF would have played for the national title at least in 2017, maybe not last year with 2 undefeated teams from higher conferences (see Cincy's undefeated season).

UCF vs WVU -> slight edge, WVU, I think their line play was better than what we've had, but that's the RichRod teams; Stewart on, I'd say UCF
Houston vs UL -> tie, very similar levels of success and big wins
Memphis vs Pitt -> UM, Stache had a few decent teams, but Pitt was pretty mediocre
Navy vs Rutgers -> Schiano years, adv Rutgers; post Schiano, adv Navy
Temple vs Syracuse -> adv Temple, Cuse was total garbage most of those years
Cincy = Cincy
USF = USF
UConn = UConn (dug their own grave while still an AQ team with bad coaching hires)

Anyway, yesterday kind of reminded me of 2006 WVU with Pat White shitting the bed against Wannstache's Pitt. We aren't as good as that 2006 WVU team, but the point is Pitt gets up for one big game a year and nothing else; that's been their MO for a long time now.

We have already done this comparison of the BE and the current AAC. And it was no contest. The AAC has not been close to the BE from 2005. And rather doing a comparison based on your perception, BCS data and computers, wins and losses, team and conference rankings and SOS were what were used. Even comparisons against the MWC were used. There is no comparison.

Please point me in the direction of this unbiased, peer-reviewed quantitative study.

I believe it was Quo who did the stats. You can find it by looking at his former posts. it was about 3 to 4 months ago.

(09-22-2019 06:51 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(09-22-2019 05:19 PM)RockyMTNTiger Wrote:  The problem with the initial post is that while Quo is biased butt hurt with the AAC and therefore must denigrate UCF - he has built his faulty conclusion on a skimpy foundation with illogical consideration. If it took more than a second to realize I am not a UCF supporter one way or the other he might have began to reason that my difficulty with his erroneous thought process has more to do with all of us have-nots in general and not UCF in particular. My argument is simple: Any other non power conference program that proved themselves with an identical record over a similar amount of time whether it be Boise, Marshall, BYU or University XYC would have earned the right. Moreover, any concrete conclusion reached by a historical analysis of 6 games is a puny, weak and flawed foundation for such a theory.

While 6 games would be hard to prove statisically valid...it is all you can go on.

I agree Quo has a hard on for UCF but he is a USF fan.

And the stats will never be there...any team has 3 or 4 shots OOC to prove itself on the national stage, against a schedule made years in advance. Statistically it's virtually impossible.

There are only two realistic options at this point to "solve" this debate -- expanding the playoff (which may or may not happen).

P5 Conference champions
1 G5 Conference champion highest ranked
2 At Larges, highest ranked non-conference champion.

Then have a playoff of those 8 teams. Or -- have a playoff of All 10 conference champions and 2 at large schools, again highest ranked non-champions. That fully resolves the issue.

(09-22-2019 05:12 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  2. The AAC is occupying the same competitive space as the Big East was during the BCS era post-2005. We have 12 teams versus 8, so the exact comparison is a little difficult and probably results in a slightly easier slate, but the quality at the top of the conference is about the same. The only difference is that an arbitrary label has been assigned and the media narrative is following that. I'd absolutely put the Top 8 in the AAC up against the Top 8 of the Big East.

You can't cherry pick like that, as you might as well compare the AAC bottom 8 to the Big East, etc. The top AAC team, UCF or otherwise, doesn't just compete against the other top 7 AAC teams, they compete against all of them.

Bottom line is, the AAC isn't as good as the Big East was. Not even close. The Big East often finished ahead of at least some of the other AQ conferences in Sagarin/Massey ratings. In contrast, the AAC never has finished ahead of any of the P5 conferences in the five years of the CFP and won't finish ahead of any of them this year either. It has though finished behind other G5 conferences, like the MW last year.

So arguing that winning the AAC is somehow equivalent to winning the Big East of a decade ago, and that a UCF has been unfairly slighted in the rankings merely because of a label, is just plain wrong. Winning the Big East was a much tougher accomplishment then than winning the AAC is now.

(09-22-2019 10:19 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(09-22-2019 01:03 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-22-2019 09:15 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  If you were actually interested in making a stronger point, you’d use something like Top 50 in S&P+ or something rather than P5 vs G5. Bet you’d probably get similar results too.

Being P5 doesn’t make a team good. Being good at football makes a team good. Groundbreaking stuff here, I know.

But that wasn’t the real point of your post and everyone knows it.

If i would get similar results using SP then i wouldn't be making a stronger argument.

Like it or not, P5 and G5 are distinctions people make, so its a basis for comparison. And while some G5 are better than some P5, as a category, P5 are better.

24-0 vs 4-2 is not a coincidence.

You'd be making a stronger point because you wouldn't have a weaker distinction as your basis of comparison.

You are missing the point. P5 and G5 is a legitimate grouping. As a whole, P5 teams will be better than G5 teams. But we have an even more accurate system than P5 and G5 for deciding who a quality opponent is. So why in the world wouldn't you use that?

You just can't help yourself.

Do you really think 24 - 0 vs 4 - 2 is a coincidence?

Seriously?

(09-23-2019 07:22 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  What exactly determines if a team is worthy of the CFP? It certainly isn’t winning, UCF and Boise State have both disproven that narrative.

Is it who you beat? It may be the root of the problem but you can only play who will schedule you. I don’t exactly see P5 programs lining up to visit The Bounce House in Orlando.

AAC teams have not had difficulty scheduling top P5 teams. This season, USF played Wisconsin, Houston played Oklahoma, Cincy played Ohio State. Disingenuous of you to mention playing in the Erector Set in Orlando, as those top schools don't play anyone on the road, at least not 1 for 1. UCF has chosen to insist on 1 for 1, so it is not playing top P5 teams. Bad strategy, IMO.

Is it your conference? Put UCF in The Big 12 the last three seasons and there is no question, with their record, they make the CFP.

Well of course. But that's because the Big 12 is a much tougher conference than the AAC, so it would be much tougher, and therefore a far more respectable accomplishment, for UCF to have won all those games in the Big 12.

The reality is the media determines who makes the playoffs and who doesn’t. Does anyone really believe that an undefeated Louisville team gets in over a 12-1 Alabama team?

Maybe not over Alabama, but an undefeated Louisville absolutely WOULD make the CFP playoffs, unless there were four other unbeaten P5 champs.

There is a near-zero chance that any unbeaten P5 champ misses the playoffs. No matter who they are. If Vanderbilt goes 13-0 and wins the SEC, they will be in the playoffs.

I am still waiting on USF to win a conference division championship. Just be the best of 6 teams, statistically, it should happen every 6 years.

(09-22-2019 06:51 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(09-22-2019 05:19 PM)RockyMTNTiger Wrote:  The problem with the initial post is that while Quo is biased butt hurt with the AAC and therefore must denigrate UCF - he has built his faulty conclusion on a skimpy foundation with illogical consideration. If it took more than a second to realize I am not a UCF supporter one way or the other he might have began to reason that my difficulty with his erroneous thought process has more to do with all of us have-nots in general and not UCF in particular. My argument is simple: Any other non power conference program that proved themselves with an identical record over a similar amount of time whether it be Boise, Marshall, BYU or University XYC would have earned the right. Moreover, any concrete conclusion reached by a historical analysis of 6 games is a puny, weak and flawed foundation for such a theory.

While 6 games would be hard to prove statisically valid...it is all you can go on.

I agree Quo has a hard on for UCF but he is a USF fan.

But the Tiger fan is wrong in portraying it that way, as I didn't just go on six games, I went on ALL the games since 2017, when UCF started winning a ton of games.

I contrasted their 24-0 record vs G5/FCS with their 4-2 record vs P5.

That's 30 games, not 6.

(09-23-2019 10:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-22-2019 10:19 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(09-22-2019 01:03 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-22-2019 09:15 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  If you were actually interested in making a stronger point, you’d use something like Top 50 in S&P+ or something rather than P5 vs G5. Bet you’d probably get similar results too.

Being P5 doesn’t make a team good. Being good at football makes a team good. Groundbreaking stuff here, I know.

But that wasn’t the real point of your post and everyone knows it.

If i would get similar results using SP then i wouldn't be making a stronger argument.

Like it or not, P5 and G5 are distinctions people make, so its a basis for comparison. And while some G5 are better than some P5, as a category, P5 are better.

24-0 vs 4-2 is not a coincidence.

You'd be making a stronger point because you wouldn't have a weaker distinction as your basis of comparison.

You are missing the point. P5 and G5 is a legitimate grouping. As a whole, P5 teams will be better than G5 teams. But we have an even more accurate system than P5 and G5 for deciding who a quality opponent is. So why in the world wouldn't you use that?

You just can't help yourself.

Do you really think 24 - 0 vs 4 - 2 is a coincidence?

Seriously?

I'm not sure what's stopping you from reading my posts, but if you did, you'd see that this is not at all what we are talking about.

Your point is that UCF hasn't had that great of a record vs top teams. I think that makes some sense anecdotally. I pointed out your breakdown of what constitutes a top team though is flawed and that you should use a more accurate method.

I'm just unsure why you wouldn't want to make the strongest argument possible. I guess you don't like making arguments with strong data. That's your right. Not for me, but you are allowed.