The unofficial online home for fans of the University of Cincinnati Bearcats. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

the answer to the original question is that the pathway does not exist.

(11-14-2018 05:23 PM)geef Wrote:  

(11-14-2018 05:10 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  It helps that the teams we play in our conference all play P5 teams at home:

Houston plays Oklahoma and has a home game vs Washington State.

UCF hosts Stanford and plays @Pitt.

USF plays @Georgia Tech, and hosts Wisconsin and BYU.

Temple plays home games against Maryland and Georgia Tech.

Memphis hosts Ole Miss.

UConn hosts Illinois and plays @Indiana.

ECU hosts Virginia Tech and plays @NC State.

Tulsa hosts Oklahoma State and plays @Michigan State.

Wow - that's some damn good scheduling.

Yes, good scheduling but unfortunately, likely a large number of AAC losses. And UC has a VERY tough schedule in 2019. I'd be happy with an 8-4 or 9-3 record next year.

(11-14-2018 11:08 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  If osu is a playoff contender and UCLA has a winning record in the pac 12 then running the table should give them a good chance.

That's the kind of perfect storm I'm skeptical of but it's possible.

I agree. It's obviously a tall and unlikely order, but if we did fill it we'd have a real chance depending upon the rest of the conference and national landscape. We'd definitely be a legitimate part of the conversation imo.

(11-14-2018 11:39 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(11-14-2018 11:26 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(11-14-2018 11:15 AM)dubcat14 Wrote:  

(11-14-2018 11:08 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  If osu is a playoff contender and UCLA has a winning record in the pac 12 then running the table should give them a good chance.

That's the kind of perfect storm I'm skeptical of but it's possible.

It's obvious that this type of scheduling is the only chance of UC making the CFP.

The question becomes, how much will it cost us financially to get two marquee out of conferences games like this every year? Understandably the schedule is pretty much set for the next 4-5 years and all we can do is hope the Marshalls, Nebraskas, Indianas we have scheduled can do better than expected.

2 very high marquee OOC, a better Miami squad, a top of their conference G5, and for 2-3 ranked AAC games each year seems to be the recipe for getting recognized nationally.

The other thing is UC should be playing a really good schedule within the conference next year.

Yep, Memphis and Houston back on the schedule and dropping Tulane and SMU will help our schedule rank considerably.

Probably, but this conference is still sorting itself out among the powers and the also-rans. I mean look at us. Even among our most optimistic fans, nobody really saw this year coming for us this soon. Meanwhile, Tulane and SMU seem to be on the upswing and you could argue that Memphis and Houston may be on the downswing. The AAC just doesn't have the history yet and it's hard to build when your successful coaches are usually immediately in the sweet spot as candidates for higher paying P5 jobs.

Every job is a stepping stone to somewhere, but this conference is uniquely alone in a zone below the P5 and above the G4 which makes it ripe for the P5 to pick from, but also a desirable jump up for most of the rest of the G4.

(11-15-2018 01:41 AM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(11-14-2018 11:39 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(11-14-2018 11:26 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(11-14-2018 11:15 AM)dubcat14 Wrote:  

(11-14-2018 11:08 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  If osu is a playoff contender and UCLA has a winning record in the pac 12 then running the table should give them a good chance.

That's the kind of perfect storm I'm skeptical of but it's possible.

It's obvious that this type of scheduling is the only chance of UC making the CFP.

The question becomes, how much will it cost us financially to get two marquee out of conferences games like this every year? Understandably the schedule is pretty much set for the next 4-5 years and all we can do is hope the Marshalls, Nebraskas, Indianas we have scheduled can do better than expected.

2 very high marquee OOC, a better Miami squad, a top of their conference G5, and for 2-3 ranked AAC games each year seems to be the recipe for getting recognized nationally.

The other thing is UC should be playing a really good schedule within the conference next year.

Yep, Memphis and Houston back on the schedule and dropping Tulane and SMU will help our schedule rank considerably.

Probably, but this conference is still sorting itself out among the powers and the also-rans. I mean look at us. Even among our most optimistic fans, nobody really saw this year coming for us this soon. Meanwhile, Tulane and SMU seem to be on the upswing and you could argue that Memphis and Houston may be on the downswing. The AAC just doesn't have the history yet and it's hard to build when your successful coaches are usually immediately in the sweet spot as candidates for higher paying P5 jobs.

Every job is a stepping stone to somewhere, but this conference is uniquely alone in a zone below the P5 and above the G4 which makes it ripe for the P5 to pick from, but also a desirable jump up for most of the rest of the G4.

As long as D'Eriq King and Darrell Henderson are at their respective schools next year...Houston and Memphis will be at the very least "above average".

(11-14-2018 02:16 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  Sigh...

I don't see it happening... Period.

And there will not be an "anti-trust lawsuit."

Jerry, you are very correct sir. 5th in the CFP would be the ceiling for any G5 team. The "almost, maybe next year" spot. Maybe they should pass out a trophy for it.....

And UC, along with UConn and USF, showed they had no interest in suing anyone with the fall of the Big East when real and specific damages could have been easily demonstrated in court. It will be another Animal House moment "Thank you sir, may I have another."

For anyone entertaining fantasies that UC running the table next year will get them in the playoffs, just note that right now in the CFP poll UC is 9-1 and ranked behind a 6-4 Northwestern who has lost to Akron and beaten Rutgers by only 3 points. Not gonna happen.

The exact quote from Rag on AAC teams being limited to a 6 seed.
https://csnbbs.com/newreply.php?tid=8330...o=15053514

(02-06-2018 06:05 PM)Ragpicker Wrote:  SMU set the bar - 6 seed. That's it. Nothing else to see here. Unfortunately our Cats will have 3 more losses this season before selection Sunday. Wichita did nothing to improve that line.

To be fair at some point he made that limit a 4 or a 5, saying it is the best this conference will ever do.
https://csnbbs.com/newreply.php?tid=8387...o=14946563

(01-01-2018 09:38 AM)Ragpicker Wrote:  Revisionist historian I see. Memphis' entire season that year was vacated due to cheating.

Teams simply can't recruit into the AAC to build a consistent Top 10 program. Not enough money. 4 to 5 seed is the best this conference will ever do. Calipari's one and done model is being adopted by more blue blood programs and also drives the top talent away from mid-majors.

And by the way, it takes big money to hire and keep quality coaches. That's why we had Tubs, UConn has Ollie and Edsall, and Memphis has Tubby. Memphis is one more year away from losing Norvell. My prediction is that if this UC team makes its way to the Final Four (maybe Elite 8) - Mick is headed back down I-71 to the Yum Center. Only makes $2M and has a measley $800k buyout.

Point is, so far we haven't had a team with a resume I thought the committee would consider. I think it's incredibly unlikely UC runs the table next year so it's irrelevant, but that's the kind of schedule a G5 team would need to make the playoff.

BTW nice that Rag doesn't post that much...took me about 5 minutes to find those. Probably would have had to spend about 5 hours looking for something from Bearcats #1

(11-15-2018 04:15 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  BTW nice that Rag doesn't post that much...took me about 5 minutes to find those. Probably would have had to spend about 5 hours looking for something from Bearcats #1

Mark, go watch soccer. You make much more sense when you focus on the Blue and Orange.

(11-15-2018 04:27 PM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(11-15-2018 04:15 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  BTW nice that Rag doesn't post that much...took me about 5 minutes to find those. Probably would have had to spend about 5 hours looking for something from Bearcats #1

Mark, go watch soccer. You make much more sense when you focus on the Blue and Orange.

You've always been a bigger soccer fan than me. I'm just a casual Liverpool and FCC fan.

(11-15-2018 03:59 PM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  For anyone entertaining fantasies that UC running the table next year will get them in the playoffs, just note that right now in the CFP poll UC is 9-1 and ranked behind a 6-4 Northwestern who has lost to Akron and beaten Rutgers by only 3 points. Not gonna happen.

Sshhh....don't make Mark waste anymore of his day searching back through endless texts on a sports bulletin board - THAT DON'T MEAN ANYTHING ANYWAY

There are children to be raised, injuries to be mended, and collegiate athletes to be coached - far more important stuff

(11-15-2018 04:29 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(11-15-2018 04:27 PM)Ragpicker Wrote:  

(11-15-2018 04:15 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  BTW nice that Rag doesn't post that much...took me about 5 minutes to find those. Probably would have had to spend about 5 hours looking for something from Bearcats #1

Mark, go watch soccer. You make much more sense when you focus on the Blue and Orange.

You've always been a bigger soccer fan than me. I'm just a casual Liverpool and FCC fan.

True. Bayern got me hooked back in 2004 on my first trip to Munich. Told my millennial friends that sit next to me at Nippert that I'm going to give the MLS a legit shot. They are big FCC fans. Plan to be at the first game, and support the team if I can see "the beautiful game" on the pitch.

Contemplate this for a moment...

The CFP rankings this week has 8 "3-loss" teams...including one that is only 6-3 right now...ranked ahead of 9-1 Utah State and Cincinnati, and 8-2 Boise State.

The CFP rankings this week also has 2 "4-loss" teams ahead of 9-1 Utah State and Cincinnati.

Now granted, UC's "strength of schedule" hasn't been that great this year, but the CFP committee deems 9 win "g5" teams to be less-than-equal to 3 6 win programs.

Even running the table, a 2-loss "Power" conference team will get into the CFP before a "g5" team will. It is what it is; we're on the outside, looking in.

(11-15-2018 04:56 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  Contemplate this for a moment...

The CFP rankings this week has 8 "3-loss" teams...including one that is only 6-3 right now...ranked ahead of 9-1 Utah State and Cincinnati, and 8-2 Boise State.

The CFP rankings this week also has 2 "4-loss" teams ahead of 9-1 Utah State and Cincinnati.

Now granted, UC's "strength of schedule" hasn't been that great this year, but the CFP committee deems 9 win "g5" teams to be less-than-equal to 3 6 win programs.

Even running the table, a 2-loss "Power" conference team will get into the CFP before a "g5" team will. It is what it is; we're on the outside, looking in.

What happens when you throw a big win against OSU and UCLA on the table? Those wins would make the difference of about 10 spots IMO. Of course you have to win those games.

(11-15-2018 05:06 PM)jarr Wrote:  

(11-15-2018 04:56 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  Contemplate this for a moment...

The CFP rankings this week has 8 "3-loss" teams...including one that is only 6-3 right now...ranked ahead of 9-1 Utah State and Cincinnati, and 8-2 Boise State.

The CFP rankings this week also has 2 "4-loss" teams ahead of 9-1 Utah State and Cincinnati.

Now granted, UC's "strength of schedule" hasn't been that great this year, but the CFP committee deems 9 win "g5" teams to be less-than-equal to 3 6 win programs.

Even running the table, a 2-loss "Power" conference team will get into the CFP before a "g5" team will. It is what it is; we're on the outside, looking in.

What happens when you throw a big win against OSU and UCLA on the table? Those wins would make the difference of about 10 spots IMO. Of course you have to win those games.

Silly Rabbit, it doesn't matter. The committee would just find some 12th dimension chess metric to put a 7-5 Alabama ahead of a 12-0 UC.

(11-15-2018 04:56 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  Contemplate this for a moment...

The CFP rankings this week has 8 "3-loss" teams...including one that is only 6-3 right now...ranked ahead of 9-1 Utah State and Cincinnati, and 8-2 Boise State.

The CFP rankings this week also has 2 "4-loss" teams ahead of 9-1 Utah State and Cincinnati.

Now granted, UC's "strength of schedule" hasn't been that great this year, but the CFP committee deems 9 win "g5" teams to be less-than-equal to 3 6 win programs.

Even running the table, a 2-loss "Power" conference team will get into the CFP before a "g5" team will. It is what it is; we're on the outside, looking in.

I get the point you're trying to make, but UC is also ranked higher in the CFP rankings than they are in multiple good computer rankings. They are 29 in S&P+ (UCF is 7 in S&P+ BTW). I'm not a huge fan of the committee and agree they favor big conference teams, but we have not seen a situation where a smaller conference team has a huge win or two over real contenders.

(11-15-2018 06:18 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(11-15-2018 04:56 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  Contemplate this for a moment...

The CFP rankings this week has 8 "3-loss" teams...including one that is only 6-3 right now...ranked ahead of 9-1 Utah State and Cincinnati, and 8-2 Boise State.

The CFP rankings this week also has 2 "4-loss" teams ahead of 9-1 Utah State and Cincinnati.

Now granted, UC's "strength of schedule" hasn't been that great this year, but the CFP committee deems 9 win "g5" teams to be less-than-equal to 3 6 win programs.

Even running the table, a 2-loss "Power" conference team will get into the CFP before a "g5" team will. It is what it is; we're on the outside, looking in.

I get the point you're trying to make, but UC is also ranked higher in the CFP rankings than they are in multiple good computer rankings. They are 29 in S&P+ (UCF is 7 in S&P+ BTW). I'm not a huge fan of the committee and agree they favor big conference teams, but we have not seen a situation where a smaller conference team has a huge win or two over real contenders.

Yeah, there's no doubt all of us have our biases and that includes those on the committee even as it changes over time. And I'd even go so far as to say that those biases are much more likely/frequently in favor of P5 teams over G5 teams than the opposite. But I don't buy the conspiracy argument that there is some group of power brokers forcing the committee to exclude the G5 because of money.

If we have a 13-0 miracle season next year including some help from our conference mates being good enough to qualify as good or very good wins for us, I think we'll be right there in the playoff discussion. I think it would get us in most years, but I'd have to see the actual landscape before definitively saying we got screwed if we are left out.

(11-15-2018 07:09 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  If we have a 13-0 miracle season next year including some help from our conference mates being good enough to qualify as good or very good wins for us, I think we'll be right there in the playoff discussion. I think it would get us in most years, but I'd have to see the actual landscape before definitively saying we got screwed if we are left out.

I agree there is no conspiracy to keep the G5 out. They're certainly going to go out of their way to give the benefit of the doubt to the P5 but if we go 13-0, OSU is the top 10 playoff contender they usually are, and the rest of the schedule gives some solid wins we'd be in the playoff. I have no concerns about that.

(11-15-2018 06:18 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(11-15-2018 04:56 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  Contemplate this for a moment...

The CFP rankings this week has 8 "3-loss" teams...including one that is only 6-3 right now...ranked ahead of 9-1 Utah State and Cincinnati, and 8-2 Boise State.

The CFP rankings this week also has 2 "4-loss" teams ahead of 9-1 Utah State and Cincinnati.

Now granted, UC's "strength of schedule" hasn't been that great this year, but the CFP committee deems 9 win "g5" teams to be less-than-equal to 3 6 win programs.

Even running the table, a 2-loss "Power" conference team will get into the CFP before a "g5" team will. It is what it is; we're on the outside, looking in.

I get the point you're trying to make, but UC is also ranked higher in the CFP rankings than they are in multiple good computer rankings. They are 29 in S&P+ (UCF is 7 in S&P+ BTW). I'm not a huge fan of the committee and agree they favor big conference teams, but we have not seen a situation where a smaller conference team has a huge win or two over real contenders.

Yeah, I mean, the numbers are pretty clear-> all the G5 teams just have really poor SOS compared to the other schools. I think Boise is the only G5 Top 25 team to even get above 100.