(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?

Yes, it has nothing to do with "the P5 is so much better omg.". A more reasonable explanation is that we lost our star quarterback right before the LSU game and lost a close game. And the Pitt game was a fluke loss, but it's hard to win 30 games without losing to somebody. Last year or 2017, we almost had a similar fluke loss to Memphis, but we came back and won it. Sometimes close games go the other way. It's not that Pitts so much more talented or anything.

You're trying to reach a desired conclusion without considering all relevant factors. I'd submit we have lost 2 games in the last six because we lost Milton. Not because all P5 teams are so much better than us or the AAC.

(09-24-2019 11:05 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(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:  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.

So the guy who was happy to merely assert that the AAC "occupies the same competitive space" as the its top 8 stack up with the Big East is now insisting on a quantitative peer-reviewed study when it is pointed out to him that this is malarkey?



We do have Sagarin and MC ratings, which while flawed all tell the same tale - the Big East of 10 years ago was clearly better than the AAC of today is.

Yes, because I know your manipulation and selective use of statistics and lack of controls is as meaningless as my qualitative assessment. Just the fact that you are ignoring using better metrics here in favor of your preferred P5 grouping.

(09-24-2019 11:24 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(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?

Yes, it has nothing to do with "the P5 is so much better omg.". A more reasonable explanation is that we lost our star quarterback right before the LSU game and lost a close game. And the Pitt game was a fluke loss, but it's hard to win 30 games without losing to somebody. Last year or 2017, we almost had a similar fluke loss to Memphis, but we came back and won it. Sometimes close games go the other way. It's not that Pitts so much more talented or anything.

You're trying to reach a desired conclusion without considering all relevant factors. I'd submit we have lost 2 games in the last six because we lost Milton. Not because all P5 teams are so much better than us or the AAC.

Didn't LSU have about 10 starters out for the game?

Both sides had adversity

(09-24-2019 12:03 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(09-24-2019 11:24 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(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:  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?

Yes, it has nothing to do with "the P5 is so much better omg.". A more reasonable explanation is that we lost our star quarterback right before the LSU game and lost a close game. And the Pitt game was a fluke loss, but it's hard to win 30 games without losing to somebody. Last year or 2017, we almost had a similar fluke loss to Memphis, but we came back and won it. Sometimes close games go the other way. It's not that Pitts so much more talented or anything.

You're trying to reach a desired conclusion without considering all relevant factors. I'd submit we have lost 2 games in the last six because we lost Milton. Not because all P5 teams are so much better than us or the AAC.

Didn't LSU have about 10 starters out for the game?

Both sides had adversity

Yes, they were missing several starters but the number is amoprhous and always seems to grow lol. I agree both teams had adversity and who knows what would've happened if both teams were healthy. No shame losing a close one to a Top 10 team.

LSU was out 7 defensive starters and lost 2 more by halftime.

https://www.fanduel.com/theduel/posts/62...toward-ucf

(09-24-2019 11:24 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(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?

Yes, it has nothing to do with "the P5 is so much better omg.". A more reasonable explanation is that we lost our star quarterback right before the LSU game and lost a close game. And the Pitt game was a fluke loss, but it's hard to win 30 games without losing to somebody. Last year or 2017, we almost had a similar fluke loss to Memphis, but we came back and won it. Sometimes close games go the other way. It's not that Pitts so much more talented or anything.

You're trying to reach a desired conclusion without considering all relevant factors. I'd submit we have lost 2 games in the last six because we lost Milton. Not because all P5 teams are so much better than us or the AAC.

I've never come close to saying that "all P5 teams are so much better than UCF or the AAC", so it seems like you are the one who isn't sensitive to all relevant factors.

24 - 0 vs 4 - 2 is a stark difference. Very stark.

The Big Issue the past three years has been "what's the value of a UCF undefeated record"? That's the claim UCF fans and supporters of G5 have made - "if you go unbeaten you should be in the playoffs".

But 24 - 0 vs 4 - 2 suggests that not all unbeaten seasons are equal. Ones filled with G5 games are a lot easier to go unbeaten against.

(09-24-2019 11:29 AM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(09-24-2019 11:05 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

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

(09-22-2019 06:47 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

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

So the guy who was happy to merely assert that the AAC "occupies the same competitive space" as the its top 8 stack up with the Big East is now insisting on a quantitative peer-reviewed study when it is pointed out to him that this is malarkey?



We do have Sagarin and MC ratings, which while flawed all tell the same tale - the Big East of 10 years ago was clearly better than the AAC of today is.

Yes, because I know your manipulation and selective use of statistics and lack of controls is as meaningless as my qualitative assessment. Just the fact that you are ignoring using better metrics here in favor of your preferred P5 grouping.

P5 vs G5 is a very relevant grouping because like it or not, people everywhere make those distinctions. In any event, the guy who said SP was a better metric came to the same conclusion I did.

Besides, there's one thing that SP misses - the wear and tear factor. For example, because of coaching and other intangibles a school like Buffalo might be better than FSU this year. So if team X plays Buffalo, they might have a slightly greater chance of losing the game than if they play FSU. But, FSU is still loaded with lots of good athletes. Most of their guys are 3, 4, and even 5 star guys. So they are probably bigger/faster/stronger than the Buffalo players even though they don't add up to as good of a team.

Point is, if you play FSU, you may beat them easier than if you play Buffalo, but you will be more worn down coming out of that game from banging against their big/strong bodies and chasing their fast athletes. So you will have less energy for the next team you face. That's a difference between a P5 and G5 schedule.

And when it comes to AAC vs Big East, there has been no "manipulation" of statistics. You are free to look up the Sagarin conference ratings or the Massey Composite conference ratings of the past 10 years. They aren't my statistics, I'm just the messenger.

You just don't like the message.

(09-24-2019 12:59 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  LSU was out 7 defensive starters and lost 2 by halftime.

https://www.fanduel.com/theduel/posts/62...toward-ucf

Yes, LSU was missing a LOT more talent for that Fiesta Bowl than was UCF, but UCF fans keep whining about their QB, even though their replacement QB was the MVP of the AAC title game.

(09-24-2019 01:19 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-24-2019 12:59 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  LSU was out 7 defensive starters and lost 2 by halftime.

https://www.fanduel.com/theduel/posts/62...toward-ucf

Yes, LSU was missing a LOT more talent for that Fiesta Bowl than was UCF, but UCF fans keep whining about their QB, even though their replacement QB was the MVP of the AAC title game.

Quo, in an earlier post, you noted about the 2018 Memphis team: “That suggests Memphis wasn't all that good.” Which, as a Tiger fan since the early 1970s, I basically agree with you (though that team had some very strong individual players).

Then in this thread — and to contend that UCF lost to LSU fair and square — you note “even though [UCF’s] replacement QB was the MVP of the AAC title game” — as if to suggest that Darriel Mack Jr. (who led UCF to the win over Memphis) is a quality quarterback who was every bit as prepared to take on LSU as McKenzie Milton.

True, LSU was missing LOTS of strong defensive players. That hurt the Tigers. But to take a quarterback of Milton’s caliber out of the lineup… let’s be fair. That was crippling. UCF still might have lost with Milton. But your argument … I’m lost.

I have one university that I’m passionate about and it’s a member of the SEC. I could care less about UCF. I don’t root for the AAC (or any other conference as to do so is “sports nerdism” at its most embarrassing). And I often enjoy when you take to task the American fanboys. I’m basically with you on your thoughts on a playoff and being deserving of participating. I don’t see the AAC as Power 6. I give you full credit for your various posts that have been positive (and fair-minded) toward the AAC. You and I would enjoy having a cold beer and some good laughs about the folly of college sports fans. And, yes, you are an USF supporter, so you should be a bit hard on UCF. I get it.

But sometimes your posts regarding UCF and, specifically, the topics of UCF vs. Auburn and UCF vs. LSU … I just scratch my head. Maybe I’m a clueless buffoon who doesn’t understand. Perhaps you are dead on accurate. I want to give you full credit for your knowledge, your wit, your insight … but you sometimes make it difficult. I know you like to trash talk (in a playful manner) and that’s cool. But I also know you are reasonable and can give credit (or at least tone it down). This might be a time when you opt for the latter option.

With all due respect,

Bill, LSU was essentially playing UCF with a 2nd string defense. That is a pretty big deal too.

(09-24-2019 09:21 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Bill, LSU was essentially playing UCF with a 2nd string defense. That is a pretty big deal too.

That was HUGE deal and it made LSU's win over a quality UCF team all the more impressive, TMark. I give the Tigers full credit. They earned the win. And I'm with Quo in many respects regarding this topic.

But the "short-handedness" of either team (both had HUGE personnel concerns) was not the point of my post (and this is not to suggest that you did not understand the point in that post). My post was about the "big picture" regarding this issue. My post goes beyond personnel losses and to fairness and consistency in making an argument. I expect that from Quo (and of you and of others and of myself) so that the discourse on the board can be of maximum enjoyable. I'm fine with a bit of trash talking from others (it's not my thing). But I also feel we should be reasonable.

Maybe I'm asking too much.

(09-23-2019 08:37 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(09-23-2019 08:15 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  This is why I like March Madness. Teams play the games and get a real chance in winning it all. If the NCAAT was run (don’t get me wrong, they’re corrupt as well but at least they give small programs a chance) like the BCS and CFP, schools like Gonzaga, Butler, FGCU, VCU, Wichita State and George Mason would never got the chance to make it to the Final Four.

Any program outside the P6 has a chance as minuscule as it is to win the NCAAT. It’s not easy but not impossible. The same can’t be said about the G5’s.

We’ve talked about this before. The Tournament has over 60 teams participate. You can play two games over a weekend. Multiple weeks in a row. Football at the highest level in college football has never had a proper playoff format. Likely never will. How many weeks in a row would teams have to play with a 16 or 24 team field? FCS programs can do it but would FBS programs be willing to? Is the money there. If it is then eventually you may see at least 8 teams. If they do got to 8 I hope it is the top 8, nobody gets a free pass!

Do you really think the P5, or P4 as it may be then, are going to sign off on an 8 team playoff that doesn't have a spot for their champion?

The FCS playoffs have automatic qualifying conferences, why shouldn't the FBS?

(09-24-2019 10:55 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(09-23-2019 08:37 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(09-23-2019 08:15 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  This is why I like March Madness. Teams play the games and get a real chance in winning it all. If the NCAAT was run (don’t get me wrong, they’re corrupt as well but at least they give small programs a chance) like the BCS and CFP, schools like Gonzaga, Butler, FGCU, VCU, Wichita State and George Mason would never got the chance to make it to the Final Four.

Any program outside the P6 has a chance as minuscule as it is to win the NCAAT. It’s not easy but not impossible. The same can’t be said about the G5’s.

We’ve talked about this before. The Tournament has over 60 teams participate. You can play two games over a weekend. Multiple weeks in a row. Football at the highest level in college football has never had a proper playoff format. Likely never will. How many weeks in a row would teams have to play with a 16 or 24 team field? FCS programs can do it but would FBS programs be willing to? Is the money there. If it is then eventually you may see at least 8 teams. If they do got to 8 I hope it is the top 8, nobody gets a free pass!

Do you really think the P5, or P4 as it may be then, are going to sign off on an 8 team playoff that doesn't have a spot for their champion?

The FCS playoffs have automatic qualifying conferences, why shouldn't the FBS?

Agreed, as others have said 5 league champions, best of the G5 and two extra SE err wildcard teams. It won't be perfect but it should be pretty fair and keep the nation interested.

Maybe with a caveat each league have a minimum of 12 teams?

I love the bowls... hopefully they can still survive

(09-25-2019 07:42 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(09-24-2019 10:55 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(09-23-2019 08:37 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(09-23-2019 08:15 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  This is why I like March Madness. Teams play the games and get a real chance in winning it all. If the NCAAT was run (don’t get me wrong, they’re corrupt as well but at least they give small programs a chance) like the BCS and CFP, schools like Gonzaga, Butler, FGCU, VCU, Wichita State and George Mason would never got the chance to make it to the Final Four.

Any program outside the P6 has a chance as minuscule as it is to win the NCAAT. It’s not easy but not impossible. The same can’t be said about the G5’s.

We’ve talked about this before. The Tournament has over 60 teams participate. You can play two games over a weekend. Multiple weeks in a row. Football at the highest level in college football has never had a proper playoff format. Likely never will. How many weeks in a row would teams have to play with a 16 or 24 team field? FCS programs can do it but would FBS programs be willing to? Is the money there. If it is then eventually you may see at least 8 teams. If they do got to 8 I hope it is the top 8, nobody gets a free pass!

Do you really think the P5, or P4 as it may be then, are going to sign off on an 8 team playoff that doesn't have a spot for their champion?

The FCS playoffs have automatic qualifying conferences, why shouldn't the FBS?

Agreed, as others have said 5 league champions, best of the G5 and two extra SE err wildcard teams. It won't be perfect but it should be pretty fair and keep the nation interested.

Maybe with a caveat each league have a minimum of 12 teams?

I love the bowls... hopefully they can still survive

So if the ACC champ is ranked #16 and the AAC champ is #24, you think it's pretty fair that they can get in a playoff ahead of the #7 and #8 teams? We have a different idea of what fairness looks like.

(09-25-2019 07:42 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(09-24-2019 10:55 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(09-23-2019 08:37 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(09-23-2019 08:15 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  This is why I like March Madness. Teams play the games and get a real chance in winning it all. If the NCAAT was run (don’t get me wrong, they’re corrupt as well but at least they give small programs a chance) like the BCS and CFP, schools like Gonzaga, Butler, FGCU, VCU, Wichita State and George Mason would never got the chance to make it to the Final Four.

Any program outside the P6 has a chance as minuscule as it is to win the NCAAT. It’s not easy but not impossible. The same can’t be said about the G5’s.

We’ve talked about this before. The Tournament has over 60 teams participate. You can play two games over a weekend. Multiple weeks in a row. Football at the highest level in college football has never had a proper playoff format. Likely never will. How many weeks in a row would teams have to play with a 16 or 24 team field? FCS programs can do it but would FBS programs be willing to? Is the money there. If it is then eventually you may see at least 8 teams. If they do got to 8 I hope it is the top 8, nobody gets a free pass!

Do you really think the P5, or P4 as it may be then, are going to sign off on an 8 team playoff that doesn't have a spot for their champion?

The FCS playoffs have automatic qualifying conferences, why shouldn't the FBS?

Agreed, as others have said 5 league champions, best of the G5 and two extra SE err wildcard teams. It won't be perfect but it should be pretty fair and keep the nation interested.

Maybe with a caveat each league have a minimum of 12 teams?

I love the bowls... hopefully they can still survive

I could get on board with this, TMark.

Perhaps require each of the P5 league champs to have a minimum of, for example, 10 wins. Similarly, the G5 rep might need to have at least 12 wins and be ranked, say, in the Top 12. Something of this nature so that there is a effort to require the eight teams to earn their way into the playoff.

So, for example, if the SEC title game winner has a record of only 9-4 (highly unlikely, but ...), it could not automatically go (perhaps it would be chosen as one of the two wildcards).

(09-24-2019 09:16 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(09-24-2019 01:19 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-24-2019 12:59 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  LSU was out 7 defensive starters and lost 2 by halftime.

https://www.fanduel.com/theduel/posts/62...toward-ucf

Yes, LSU was missing a LOT more talent for that Fiesta Bowl than was UCF, but UCF fans keep whining about their QB, even though their replacement QB was the MVP of the AAC title game.

Quo, in an earlier post, you noted about the 2018 Memphis team: “That suggests Memphis wasn't all that good.” Which, as a Tiger fan since the early 1970s, I basically agree with you (though that team had some very strong individual players).

Then in this thread — and to contend that UCF lost to LSU fair and square — you note “even though [UCF’s] replacement QB was the MVP of the AAC title game” — as if to suggest that Darriel Mack Jr. (who led UCF to the win over Memphis) is a quality quarterback who was every bit as prepared to take on LSU as McKenzie Milton.

True, LSU was missing LOTS of strong defensive players. That hurt the Tigers. But to take a quarterback of Milton’s caliber out of the lineup… let’s be fair. That was crippling. UCF still might have lost with Milton. But your argument … I’m lost.

I have one university that I’m passionate about and it’s a member of the SEC. I could care less about UCF. I don’t root for the AAC (or any other conference as to do so is “sports nerdism” at its most embarrassing). And I often enjoy when you take to task the American fanboys. I’m basically with you on your thoughts on a playoff and being deserving of participating. I don’t see the AAC as Power 6. I give you full credit for your various posts that have been positive (and fair-minded) toward the AAC. You and I would enjoy having a cold beer and some good laughs about the folly of college sports fans. And, yes, you are an USF supporter, so you should be a bit hard on UCF. I get it.

But sometimes your posts regarding UCF and, specifically, the topics of UCF vs. Auburn and UCF vs. LSU … I just scratch my head. Maybe I’m a clueless buffoon who doesn’t understand. Perhaps you are dead on accurate. I want to give you full credit for your knowledge, your wit, your insight … but you sometimes make it difficult. I know you like to trash talk (in a playful manner) and that’s cool. But I also know you are reasonable and can give credit (or at least tone it down). This might be a time when you opt for the latter option.

With all due respect,

BD, I'm a USF fan, and I do not like UCF. I do try my best to be objective but does my bias against UCF creep in sometimes? I'm sure it does and when it does, I appreciate when others like you call me out on it.

Now about Memphis: First, to be clear, when I made comments about Memphis being "not all that good", I was referring to the 2017 Memphis team, because that was in reference to whether 2017 UCF, the team that beat Auburn in the Peach, was deserving of a playoff spot.

When I referred to UCF's D-Mack being the MVP of the 2018 AAC title game, that was a reference to the 2018 UCF team, and therefore the 2018 Memphis team, not the 2017 team.

So since I've never commented on the 2018 Memphis team explicitly, let me do it now: That team was mediocre, and not as good as the 2017 team.

Now, that said, you also infer that my statement about D-Mack winning the 2018 AAC title game MVP award was meant to "suggest that Darriel Mack Jr. (who led UCF to the win over Memphis) is a quality quarterback who was every bit as prepared to take on LSU as McKenzie Milton."

To that, I would say "no", that's not what I meant. Clearly, Mackenzie was UCF's starting QB, so UCF would have preferred to have him vs LSU than D-Mack. The point of me mentioning D-Mack's MVP award was simply to dispute the argument of UCF fans, who when discussing the loss to LSU, immediately invoke Milton's absence and act like that was a tragedy of epic proportions. To me, D-Mack's performance in the AAC title game meant he had good skills too, so the drop-off wasn't all that great.

Finally, these same UCF fans either ignore or downplay LSU's losses, which to me are obviously much greater. LSU was missing more talent than was UCF. They were missing 3/4 of their starting secondary against a team that slings the ball around, and missing other key defenders as well, including IIRC LB Jacob Philips, who missed the first half thanks to a targeting penalty in a prior game, Philips is a 5-star recruit who was the second leading tackler on last year's team.

So IMO, yes, LSU clearly was missing more talent in the Fiesta than was UCF, including Milton Mackenzie. LSU was more 'crippled'. That's just how i saw it.

(09-25-2019 10:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-24-2019 09:16 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(09-24-2019 01:19 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-24-2019 12:59 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  LSU was out 7 defensive starters and lost 2 by halftime.

https://www.fanduel.com/theduel/posts/62...toward-ucf

Yes, LSU was missing a LOT more talent for that Fiesta Bowl than was UCF, but UCF fans keep whining about their QB, even though their replacement QB was the MVP of the AAC title game.

Quo, in an earlier post, you noted about the 2018 Memphis team: “That suggests Memphis wasn't all that good.” Which, as a Tiger fan since the early 1970s, I basically agree with you (though that team had some very strong individual players).

Then in this thread — and to contend that UCF lost to LSU fair and square — you note “even though [UCF’s] replacement QB was the MVP of the AAC title game” — as if to suggest that Darriel Mack Jr. (who led UCF to the win over Memphis) is a quality quarterback who was every bit as prepared to take on LSU as McKenzie Milton.

True, LSU was missing LOTS of strong defensive players. That hurt the Tigers. But to take a quarterback of Milton’s caliber out of the lineup… let’s be fair. That was crippling. UCF still might have lost with Milton. But your argument … I’m lost.

I have one university that I’m passionate about and it’s a member of the SEC. I could care less about UCF. I don’t root for the AAC (or any other conference as to do so is “sports nerdism” at its most embarrassing). And I often enjoy when you take to task the American fanboys. I’m basically with you on your thoughts on a playoff and being deserving of participating. I don’t see the AAC as Power 6. I give you full credit for your various posts that have been positive (and fair-minded) toward the AAC. You and I would enjoy having a cold beer and some good laughs about the folly of college sports fans. And, yes, you are an USF supporter, so you should be a bit hard on UCF. I get it.

But sometimes your posts regarding UCF and, specifically, the topics of UCF vs. Auburn and UCF vs. LSU … I just scratch my head. Maybe I’m a clueless buffoon who doesn’t understand. Perhaps you are dead on accurate. I want to give you full credit for your knowledge, your wit, your insight … but you sometimes make it difficult. I know you like to trash talk (in a playful manner) and that’s cool. But I also know you are reasonable and can give credit (or at least tone it down). This might be a time when you opt for the latter option.

With all due respect,

BD, I'm a USF fan, and I do not like UCF. I do try my best to be objective but does my bias against UCF creep in sometimes? I'm sure it does and when it does, I appreciate when others like you call me out on it.

Now about Memphis: First, to be clear, when I made comments about Memphis being "not all that good", I was referring to the 2017 Memphis team, because that was in reference to whether 2017 UCF, the team that beat Auburn in the Peach, was deserving of a playoff spot.

When I referred to UCF's D-Mack being the MVP of the 2018 AAC title game, that was a reference to the 2018 UCF team, and therefore the 2018 Memphis team, not the 2017 team.

So since I've never commented on the 2018 Memphis team explicitly, let me do it now: That team was mediocre, and not as good as the 2017 team.

Now, that said, you also infer that my statement about D-Mack winning the 2018 AAC title game MVP award was meant to "suggest that Darriel Mack Jr. (who led UCF to the win over Memphis) is a quality quarterback who was every bit as prepared to take on LSU as McKenzie Milton."

To that, I would say "no", that's not what I meant. Clearly, Mackenzie was UCF's starting QB, so UCF would have preferred to have him vs LSU than D-Mack. The point of me mentioning D-Mack's MVP award was simply to dispute the argument of UCF fans, who when discussing the loss to LSU, immediately invoke Milton's absence and act like that was a tragedy of epic proportions. To me, D-Mack's performance in the AAC title game meant he had good skills too, so the drop-off wasn't all that great.

Finally, these same UCF fans either ignore or downplay LSU's losses, which to me are obviously much greater. LSU was missing more talent than was UCF. They were missing 3/4 of their starting secondary against a team that slings the ball around, and missing other key defenders as well, including IIRC LB Jacob Philips, who missed the first half thanks to a targeting penalty in a prior game, Philips is a 5-star recruit who was the second leading tackler on last year's team.

So IMO, yes, LSU clearly was missing more talent in the Fiesta than was UCF, including Milton Mackenzie. LSU was more 'crippled'. That's just how i saw it.

This is a very fair, specific and focused response, Quo. I fumbled on the two Tiger teams (2017 and 2018). That's my bad.

I do agree with you that LSU was missing more talent in the Fiesta than was UCF — and in terms of sheer numbers, the impact was significant. But I would argue (in a general sense) that the single-most key player of any team is the quarterback and that Milton was a stellar QB last year, making his absence all the more glaring. Though the drop-off in skills (from MM to D-Mack) was not that significant (as you note and I agree with you), the dip in experience and confidence was harmful to UCF.

Now to be fair, I still think LSU would have won had both teams been at full strength.

I always appreciate when folks respond to my criticisms in a civil manner. You and others on the board have done so with me during my four months of posting. I am worthy of criticisms too. We all have flaws.

Sometimes I get a bit frustrated with you and some other key posters because I so respect your contributions to the board and your knowledge of college sports. If you and these others were schmoes ... I wouldn't waste my time.

Keep up the good work and thanks for your time.

LSU was missing more talent than UCF.

Regardless of that UCF’s best chance to win was Milton and their odds of winning dropped by at least 30-40% without him.

(09-25-2019 07:56 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(09-25-2019 07:42 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(09-24-2019 10:55 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(09-23-2019 08:37 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(09-23-2019 08:15 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  This is why I like March Madness. Teams play the games and get a real chance in winning it all. If the NCAAT was run (don’t get me wrong, they’re corrupt as well but at least they give small programs a chance) like the BCS and CFP, schools like Gonzaga, Butler, FGCU, VCU, Wichita State and George Mason would never got the chance to make it to the Final Four.

Any program outside the P6 has a chance as minuscule as it is to win the NCAAT. It’s not easy but not impossible. The same can’t be said about the G5’s.

We’ve talked about this before. The Tournament has over 60 teams participate. You can play two games over a weekend. Multiple weeks in a row. Football at the highest level in college football has never had a proper playoff format. Likely never will. How many weeks in a row would teams have to play with a 16 or 24 team field? FCS programs can do it but would FBS programs be willing to? Is the money there. If it is then eventually you may see at least 8 teams. If they do got to 8 I hope it is the top 8, nobody gets a free pass!

Do you really think the P5, or P4 as it may be then, are going to sign off on an 8 team playoff that doesn't have a spot for their champion?

The FCS playoffs have automatic qualifying conferences, why shouldn't the FBS?

Agreed, as others have said 5 league champions, best of the G5 and two extra SE err wildcard teams. It won't be perfect but it should be pretty fair and keep the nation interested.

Maybe with a caveat each league have a minimum of 12 teams?

I love the bowls... hopefully they can still survive

So if the ACC champ is ranked #16 and the AAC champ is #24, you think it's pretty fair that they can get in a playoff ahead of the #7 and #8 teams? We have a different idea of what fairness looks like.

Still fairer than the BCS and the system before it.

All polls have bias.

(09-25-2019 07:56 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(09-25-2019 07:42 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(09-24-2019 10:55 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(09-23-2019 08:37 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(09-23-2019 08:15 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  This is why I like March Madness. Teams play the games and get a real chance in winning it all. If the NCAAT was run (don’t get me wrong, they’re corrupt as well but at least they give small programs a chance) like the BCS and CFP, schools like Gonzaga, Butler, FGCU, VCU, Wichita State and George Mason would never got the chance to make it to the Final Four.

Any program outside the P6 has a chance as minuscule as it is to win the NCAAT. It’s not easy but not impossible. The same can’t be said about the G5’s.

We’ve talked about this before. The Tournament has over 60 teams participate. You can play two games over a weekend. Multiple weeks in a row. Football at the highest level in college football has never had a proper playoff format. Likely never will. How many weeks in a row would teams have to play with a 16 or 24 team field? FCS programs can do it but would FBS programs be willing to? Is the money there. If it is then eventually you may see at least 8 teams. If they do got to 8 I hope it is the top 8, nobody gets a free pass!

Do you really think the P5, or P4 as it may be then, are going to sign off on an 8 team playoff that doesn't have a spot for their champion?

The FCS playoffs have automatic qualifying conferences, why shouldn't the FBS?

Agreed, as others have said 5 league champions, best of the G5 and two extra SE err wildcard teams. It won't be perfect but it should be pretty fair and keep the nation interested.

Maybe with a caveat each league have a minimum of 12 teams?

I love the bowls... hopefully they can still survive

So if the ACC champ is ranked #16 and the AAC champ is #24, you think it's pretty fair that they can get in a playoff ahead of the #7 and #8 teams? We have a different idea of what fairness looks like.

Except polls are an arbitrary construct of what people think are the best teams. Conference champions prove on the field who best represents those 10 to 14 teams.

However, automatic qualifying conferences shouldn't be absolutely permanent. If a conference only places 1 team in the CFP, that team isn't ranked in the top 25 and loses in the first round for 5 straight years, they should lose their automatic qualifying designation.