That is probably the best case to date of stats that lie. I am sorry but I will take penn state over utsa any day. Secondly you got 1.75 quarters worth of ucf's offense. Had Holman started the defense wouldn't have been gassed and our point total would have been higher. Not to mention that the offense for penn state wouldn't have been on the field the whole game. You had a couple of break downs that gave them over 100 yards in two plays and we still held them to 24 points. I am sorry but 8 and 5 in the b1g is better than 7 and 5 in cusa. Try to justify anything anyway you want but we would have dusted the team that Houston fielded this week.
[/quote]

'If' this or 'if' that doesn't hold up. 'If' frogs had wings they'd fly up and screw pigeons too but it didn't work out that way. UCF played all 4 quarters of that game, not 1.75. You're welcome to check with the NCAA Statistics personnel if you object to their numbers.

Neither Houston nor UCF performed well in their respective games. Houston is ranked 111th in total offense and UCF is 108th; not exactly enough difference to argue over. However, total defense rankings show Houston tied at 29th compared to UCF tied at 102nd; a distinct difference.

Penn State were not 8-5, they were 7-5 but you missed the point. The issue revolves around Houston's loss to UTSA. Both schools ended their 2013 seasons with similar records. Houston was 8-5 while UTSA was 7-5. On the other hand, UCF finished their 2013 season at 12-1 while Penn State finished at 7-5.

Statistics don't lie. Those numbers are based upon actual performance of the respective teams. However, they do eliminate the 'what if' from the equation. As for your claim, "we would have dusted the team that Houston fielded this week," I disagree. UCF only marginally out-performed Houston offensively but Houston performed much better defensively. In fact, they performed nearly as well as Penn State.

My comparison merely pointed out that the loss by a 12-1 team to a 7-5 team is worse than the loss by an 8-5 team to a 7-5 team. It was not an attack upon UCF; it merely identified a conference loss that was worse, on many levels, than Houston's. Several people gave a pass to UCF's loss in their assessment of the conference's weekly performance; a pass that was undeserved for obvious reasons. I would gladly apologize if I had misquoted any facts but I don't see any need to do so based upon my statement being taken out of context.
[/quote]

Again that's why computers don't run businesses. If you had watched the game you would know that. Okorn looked absolutely lost. Believe what you want but the difference is we were trying out our qb in his first game unlike Houston's established starter. Once we put the 1b in the offense clicked. There in lies the difference a and not in the statistics. One point loss vs a sound defeat. Again penn state plays b1g not cusa. If you think they are equal then you have just invalidated your post. Stats lie and can be manipulated in a way that supports theory's. You are proving that point. I don't care to get in a pissing contest with you but there is a reason most are giving us a pass for a one point loss we still would have won if oleary simply took the points.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(09-02-2014 07:47 AM)Knightbengal Wrote:  

(09-02-2014 02:18 AM)shafted1 Wrote:  

That is probably the best case to date of stats that lie. I am sorry but I will take penn state over utsa any day. Secondly you got 1.75 quarters worth of ucf's offense. Had Holman started the defense wouldn't have been gassed and our point total would have been higher. Not to mention that the offense for penn state wouldn't have been on the field the whole game. You had a couple of break downs that gave them over 100 yards in two plays and we still held them to 24 points. I am sorry but 8 and 5 in the b1g is better than 7 and 5 in cusa. Try to justify anything anyway you want but we would have dusted the team that Houston fielded this week.

'If' this or 'if' that doesn't hold up. 'If' frogs had wings they'd fly up and screw pigeons too but it didn't work out that way. UCF played all 4 quarters of that game, not 1.75. You're welcome to check with the NCAA Statistics personnel if you object to their numbers.

Neither Houston nor UCF performed well in their respective games. Houston is ranked 111th in total offense and UCF is 108th; not exactly enough difference to argue over. However, total defense rankings show Houston tied at 29th compared to UCF tied at 102nd; a distinct difference.

Penn State were not 8-5, they were 7-5 but you missed the point. The issue revolves around Houston's loss to UTSA. Both schools ended their 2013 seasons with similar records. Houston was 8-5 while UTSA was 7-5. On the other hand, UCF finished their 2013 season at 12-1 while Penn State finished at 7-5.

Statistics don't lie. Those numbers are based upon actual performance of the respective teams. However, they do eliminate the 'what if' from the equation. As for your claim, "we would have dusted the team that Houston fielded this week," I disagree. UCF only marginally out-performed Houston offensively but Houston performed much better defensively. In fact, they performed nearly as well as Penn State.

My comparison merely pointed out that the loss by a 12-1 team to a 7-5 team is worse than the loss by an 8-5 team to a 7-5 team. It was not an attack upon UCF; it merely identified a conference loss that was worse, on many levels, than Houston's. Several people gave a pass to UCF's loss in their assessment of the conference's weekly performance; a pass that was undeserved for obvious reasons. I would gladly apologize if I had misquoted any facts but I don't see any need to do so based upon my statement being taken out of context.
[/quote]

Again that's why computers don't run businesses. If you had watched the game you would know that. Okorn looked absolutely lost. Believe what you want but the difference is we were trying out our qb in his first game unlike Houston's established starter. Once we put the 1b in the offense clicked. There in lies the difference a and not in the statistics. One point loss vs a sound defeat. Again penn state plays b1g not cusa. If you think they are equal then you have just invalidated your post. Stats lie and can be manipulated in a way that supports theory's. You are proving that point. I don't care to get in a pissing contest with you but there is a reason most are giving us a pass for a one point loss we still would have won if oleary simply took the points.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App
[/quote]

The reali difference came at coach hiring time. UCF picked a veteran head coach with a solid track record of success in O'Leary. UTSA signed a former national championship winner to build thier program. Houston, coming off a 13-1 season and a Big-East invite---with a new stadium announced---promoted a special teams coach with no head coaching background. Heck nobody had ever even seen fit to make Levine a OC or DC. With all that momentum and with the Houston program offering a position that had been an excellent spring board to big time P5 jobs--we promote an unknown special teams coach rather than make a quality resume hire. I never understoodthat decision. But it goes a long way is illuminating why the debacles at Texas State and UTSA happened. More so than most experienced coaches, his lack of OC or DC background leaves Levine's success or failure far more dependent on the performance of his OC's and DC's than the typical coach.

I didn't like the hire when it went down and now you are seeing why. It was a risky hire when there was no reason to make such a long shot reach. We actually were offering a pretty attractive job at the time. There was no reason to settle on such a weak candidate.

What's sad is they
interviewed the UCF athletic director. He was pushing UCF to being a power conference school . On national TV hes doing this makes our conference look like s***



Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(09-02-2014 02:00 PM)Stookey57 Wrote:  What's sad is they
interviewed the UCF athletic director. He was pushing UCF to being a power conference school . On national TV hes doing this makes our conference look like s***



Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

They asked the question what do you expect? He said power conference school. If the AAC becomes one then great. If not that's what we offer


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(09-02-2014 02:18 AM)shafted1 Wrote:  My comparison merely pointed out that the loss by a 12-1 team to a 7-5 team is worse than the loss by an 8-5 team to a 7-5 team.

So cutting through all the spin, do you really think a 27-7 home loss to UTSA looks better than a 26-24 neutral site loss to Penn State?

(09-02-2014 03:32 PM)MechaKnight Wrote:  

(09-02-2014 02:18 AM)shafted1 Wrote:  My comparison merely pointed out that the loss by a 12-1 team to a 7-5 team is worse than the loss by an 8-5 team to a 7-5 team.

So cutting through all the spin, do you really think a 27-7 home loss to UTSA looks better than a 26-24 neutral site loss to Penn State?

Even though comparing 2013 records to 2014 teams is dumb, here's a brief exercise:

2013 Penn St. (7-5) had best wins over Michigan and Wisconsin on the road. Its best losses were to UCF (by 3 points) and to Nebraska (by 3 points in OT).

2013 UTSA (7-5) had best wins over Louisiana Tech (or New Mexico or UTEP or North Texas Or Tulane, take your pick) and Tulsa. It's best losses were to Rice (by 6 points) and at Marshall (by 24 points).

Ummmm.......

(09-02-2014 03:32 PM)MechaKnight Wrote:  

(09-02-2014 02:18 AM)shafted1 Wrote:  My comparison merely pointed out that the loss by a 12-1 team to a 7-5 team is worse than the loss by an 8-5 team to a 7-5 team.

So cutting through all the spin, do you really think a 27-7 home loss to UTSA looks better than a 26-24 neutral site loss to Penn State?

I didn't offer any 'spin,' just facts. Yes, I do think the loss by our 10th-ranked 'reigning' conference champion to an 'unranked' team is worse than the loss by our 'unranked' 4th place conference team to a comparable opponent.

Are you suggesting a 12-1 team losing to a 7-5 team is somehow better than an 8-5 team losing to a 7-5 team?

(09-02-2014 04:02 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(09-02-2014 03:32 PM)MechaKnight Wrote:  

(09-02-2014 02:18 AM)shafted1 Wrote:  My comparison merely pointed out that the loss by a 12-1 team to a 7-5 team is worse than the loss by an 8-5 team to a 7-5 team.

So cutting through all the spin, do you really think a 27-7 home loss to UTSA looks better than a 26-24 neutral site loss to Penn State?

Even though comparing 2013 records to 2014 teams is dumb, here's a brief exercise:

2013 Penn St. (7-5) had best wins over Michigan and Wisconsin on the road. Its best losses were to UCF (by 3 points) and to Nebraska (by 3 points in OT).

2013 UTSA (7-5) had best wins over Louisiana Tech (or New Mexico or UTEP or North Texas Or Tulane, take your pick) and Tulsa. It's best losses were to Rice (by 6 points) and at Marshall (by 24 points).

Ummmm.......

Your exercise completely ignores the reality that the AAC's reigning champion lost to a lesser opponent while our 4th place team lost to a comparable opponent. Surely you're not suggesting that anything our 4th place finisher does, or doesn't, do has more impact upon the conference as a whole than that of our nationally-recognized 1st place finisher?

I find your claim, "comparing 2013 records to 2014 teams is dumb," amusing. By your standard of measure, UCF fans shouldn't mention their '1st place finish' from 2013 or their appearance in the Fiesta bowl since both were part of the 2013 season after all. There must be an awful lot of "dumb" sports writers and fans since they rely heavily upon past performance in their current predictions and/ or opinions, you included.

Consider that Florida State is currently ranked at #1 based upon "last year's success." Choose any topic from the main board and try to find one that doesn't rely upon last year's performance as a basis for their discussion. I won't hold my breath while waiting. Are we not allowed to compare last year's performance to this year's team only when it proves disadvantageous?

(09-02-2014 03:32 PM)MechaKnight Wrote:  

(09-02-2014 02:18 AM)shafted1 Wrote:  My comparison merely pointed out that the loss by a 12-1 team to a 7-5 team is worse than the loss by an 8-5 team to a 7-5 team.

So cutting through all the spin, do you really think a 27-7 home loss to UTSA looks better than a 26-24 neutral site loss to Penn State?

Hell no. We looked awful. Without miraculous improvement we are 2 or 3 win team.

(09-02-2014 10:38 PM)shafted1 Wrote:  

(09-02-2014 03:32 PM)MechaKnight Wrote:  

(09-02-2014 02:18 AM)shafted1 Wrote:  My comparison merely pointed out that the loss by a 12-1 team to a 7-5 team is worse than the loss by an 8-5 team to a 7-5 team.

So cutting through all the spin, do you really think a 27-7 home loss to UTSA looks better than a 26-24 neutral site loss to Penn State?

I didn't offer any 'spin,' just facts. Yes, I do think the loss by our 10th-ranked 'reigning' conference champion to an 'unranked' team is worse than the loss by our 'unranked' 4th place conference team to a comparable opponent.

Are you suggesting a 12-1 team losing to a 7-5 team is somehow better than an 8-5 team losing to a 7-5 team?

Yes. You can't just insert records from last year and pretend like everything else is equal. You are spinning this by ignoring the teams that those records represent, ignoring the actual score of the game, ignoring the location of the game, ignoring offseason changes, ignoring the expectations of the teams involved, etc

Last year's performances are a factor in determining this year's preseason expectations, but you can't look at them in a vacuum.

(09-03-2014 07:46 AM)MechaKnight Wrote:  

(09-02-2014 10:38 PM)shafted1 Wrote:  

(09-02-2014 03:32 PM)MechaKnight Wrote:  

(09-02-2014 02:18 AM)shafted1 Wrote:  My comparison merely pointed out that the loss by a 12-1 team to a 7-5 team is worse than the loss by an 8-5 team to a 7-5 team.

So cutting through all the spin, do you really think a 27-7 home loss to UTSA looks better than a 26-24 neutral site loss to Penn State?

I didn't offer any 'spin,' just facts. Yes, I do think the loss by our 10th-ranked 'reigning' conference champion to an 'unranked' team is worse than the loss by our 'unranked' 4th place conference team to a comparable opponent.

Are you suggesting a 12-1 team losing to a 7-5 team is somehow better than an 8-5 team losing to a 7-5 team?

Yes. You can't just insert records from last year and pretend like everything else is equal. You are spinning this by ignoring the teams that those records represent, ignoring the actual score of the game, ignoring the location of the game, ignoring offseason changes, ignoring the expectations of the teams involved, etc

Last year's performances are a factor in determining this year's preseason expectations, but you can't look at them in a vacuum.

Last year's performances are not 'a' factor in determining this year's preseason expectations, they are the single-most important factor in doing so. It is last year's performance that made UCF the highest profile team in our conference. The location of their game last week served to escalate their profile even further.

Their loss to an A5 team on a national stage hurt the perception of this conference far more than Houston's loss to a comparable G5 opponent. The bottom line for UCF, resulting from that loss, is that they are no longer in control of their own destiny. One more loss may very well eliminate them from contention for the access bowl, if they haven't already missed their opportunity. We will not know until the season's end whether or not a single loss is sufficient to eliminate a team from contention.

Looking outside the "vacuum" of this board, UCF must rely upon losses by other G5 contenders (including Cincinnati) to have a shot at the access bowl. Likewise, they can't afford another loss if they hope to earn that opportunity. The loss of Blake Bortles and Storm Johnson significantly reduces UCF's chances of surviving this season without another loss.

The 4 conference teams who won their games last week have a better shot at the access bowl than UCF as it stands. Last year's success will be blown off as nothing more than a fluke should UCF come up short this season. The general consensus is that the AAC is a group of "wannabes" on the national stage and a poor showing by our nationally-ranked champion will reaffirm their perception. How can that NOT be more costly for the AAC than any other loss?

(09-03-2014 12:41 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-02-2014 03:32 PM)MechaKnight Wrote:  

(09-02-2014 02:18 AM)shafted1 Wrote:  My comparison merely pointed out that the loss by a 12-1 team to a 7-5 team is worse than the loss by an 8-5 team to a 7-5 team.

So cutting through all the spin, do you really think a 27-7 home loss to UTSA looks better than a 26-24 neutral site loss to Penn State?

Hell no. We looked awful. Without miraculous improvement we are 2 or 3 win team.

Maybe I'm too optimistic but I just don't see Houston's performance last week as an indication of things to come. I see it as nothing more than too much excitement, over their new stadium, leaving the players emotionally drained and ill-prepared for the task at hand. That extreme excitement probably led the players to downplay the threat posed by their opponent.

Not to mention the reality that every team in our conference, with the exception of Temple and UConn, came from the very conference to which UTSA belongs. The false bravado displayed by our conference mates is akin to the very attitude we abhor from A5 schools. That kind of thinking probably contributed heavily to Houston under-estimating their enemy.

Houston got caught with their britches down and UTSA stuck it to'em. I doubt those sore tails will be made available again for quite some time!

(09-03-2014 04:32 PM)shafted1 Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 12:41 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-02-2014 03:32 PM)MechaKnight Wrote:  

(09-02-2014 02:18 AM)shafted1 Wrote:  My comparison merely pointed out that the loss by a 12-1 team to a 7-5 team is worse than the loss by an 8-5 team to a 7-5 team.

So cutting through all the spin, do you really think a 27-7 home loss to UTSA looks better than a 26-24 neutral site loss to Penn State?

Hell no. We looked awful. Without miraculous improvement we are 2 or 3 win team.

Maybe I'm too optimistic but I just don't see Houston's performance last week as an indication of things to come. I see it as nothing more than too much excitement, over their new stadium, leaving the players emotionally drained and ill-prepared for the task at hand. That extreme excitement probably led the players to downplay the threat posed by their opponent.

Not to mention the reality that every team in our conference, with the exception of Temple and UConn, came from the very conference to which UTSA belongs. The false bravado displayed by our conference mates is akin to the very attitude we abhor from A5 schools. That kind of thinking probably contributed heavily to Houston under-estimating their enemy.

Houston got caught with their britches down and UTSA stuck it to'em. I doubt those sore tails will be made available again for quite some time!

Much like 2012, Houston hired a coordinator that was simply not up to the job. Many of us expressed concerns regarding the hire when it was announced. The issues run much deeper than being overconfident. Eliminating Friday nights garbage time TD in the final minute of play--this new OC has been shut out in 7 of his 8 quarters of play since being appointed in December of 2013 (counts last years bowl).

(09-03-2014 05:13 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 04:32 PM)shafted1 Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 12:41 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-02-2014 03:32 PM)MechaKnight Wrote:  

(09-02-2014 02:18 AM)shafted1 Wrote:  My comparison merely pointed out that the loss by a 12-1 team to a 7-5 team is worse than the loss by an 8-5 team to a 7-5 team.

So cutting through all the spin, do you really think a 27-7 home loss to UTSA looks better than a 26-24 neutral site loss to Penn State?

Hell no. We looked awful. Without miraculous improvement we are 2 or 3 win team.

Maybe I'm too optimistic but I just don't see Houston's performance last week as an indication of things to come. I see it as nothing more than too much excitement, over their new stadium, leaving the players emotionally drained and ill-prepared for the task at hand. That extreme excitement probably led the players to downplay the threat posed by their opponent.

Not to mention the reality that every team in our conference, with the exception of Temple and UConn, came from the very conference to which UTSA belongs. The false bravado displayed by our conference mates is akin to the very attitude we abhor from A5 schools. That kind of thinking probably contributed heavily to Houston under-estimating their enemy.

Houston got caught with their britches down and UTSA stuck it to'em. I doubt those sore tails will be made available again for quite some time!

Much like 2012, Houston hired a coordinator that was simply not up to the job. Many of us expressed concerns regarding the hire when it was announced. The issues run much deeper than being overconfident. Eliminating Friday nights garbage time TD in the final minute of play--this new OC has been shut out in 7 of his 8 quarters of play since being appointed in December of 2013 (counts last years bowl).

You may be right but Houston has too much talent on their roster to accept such poor coaching decisions from an OC. They are a high-powered offensive unit and they'll overcome whatever issues are necessary to succeed, even if the players have to boycott their coaching staff.

That was what i wrote after week 1. Is this a fair statement or am i being too nice by saying "shaky". Is AAC off to an awful start more accurate? Thank God for my ECU Pirates, the class of the AAC.

(09-13-2014 10:28 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  That was what i wrote after week 1. Is this a fair statement or am i being too nice by saying "shaky". Is AAC off to an awful start more accurate? Thank God for my ECU Pirates, the class of the AAC.

Cincy looks good too. Let's not pat our own backs too hard.