(09-21-2019 10:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-21-2019 09:10 PM)goofus Wrote:  Of course, finally some proof.

Since UCF lost to Pitt in 2019, that means the 2017 team should never have been considered for the CFP. I am glad this finally settles that argument.

It does show how silly it is to argue CFP inclusion for any team that has only a bunch of G5 wins to their credit. Those games mean very little by that standard.

Again, what playoff. We are all college football fans and know the only reason this is a "playoff" is that is contracted with ESPiN's blessing. Money talks. Whether UCF is deserved, you can't say with this system.

(09-25-2019 12:14 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(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:  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.

Except ... conference champions do not necessarily prove on the field who best represents those 10 - 14 teams, because they ignore OOC games.

E.g., imagine that UCF goes 12-0 during the season, with OOC wins over #15 Stanford and #17 North Carolina. Memphis goes 7-5 during the season, with losses to four unranked FCS and other G5 teams. But Memphis beats UCF in the AAC title game. Nobody in their right mind can say that 8-5 Memphis had a better season "on the field" than 12-1 UCF. That's nutso. Giving Memphis the playoff bid would mean valuing its one win over UCF more than all of those other games they lost put together.

(09-26-2019 09:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-25-2019 12:14 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(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:  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.

Except ... conference champions do not necessarily prove on the field who best represents those 10 - 14 teams, because they ignore OOC games.

E.g., imagine that UCF goes 12-0 during the season, with OOC wins over #15 Stanford and #17 North Carolina. Memphis goes 7-5 during the season, with losses to four unranked FCS and other G5 teams. But Memphis beats UCF in the AAC title game. Nobody in their right mind can say that 8-5 Memphis had a better season "on the field" than 12-1 UCF. That's nutso. Giving Memphis the playoff bid would mean valuing its one win over UCF more than all of those other games they lost put together.

If we played a league schedule where most teams played each other like a pro sports league, you would have a valid point. But the conferences are essentially leagues unto themselves, so the point should be that the conference is the gatekeeper for advancing into the national playoffs. If you're not the best team in the conference, as decided by a playoff game, then you can't be the best team in the country.

If we were to discard CCGs and have conference round-robins with the regular season champ being the conference champ, that would be ideal. But that's not going to happen.

We already use this system in the NCAA basketball tourney. I think there, with leagues playing round-robins, there's a much stronger argument for the regular season champ to be in the tourney and not the tournament champ. It allows a really awful team to get into the NCAA tournament off of a 3-4 game run. But we seem to like playoffs deciding things in America.

(09-26-2019 09:56 AM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(09-26-2019 09:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-25-2019 12:14 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(09-25-2019 07:56 AM)ken d Wrote:  

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

Except ... conference champions do not necessarily prove on the field who best represents those 10 - 14 teams, because they ignore OOC games.

E.g., imagine that UCF goes 12-0 during the season, with OOC wins over #15 Stanford and #17 North Carolina. Memphis goes 7-5 during the season, with losses to four unranked FCS and other G5 teams. But Memphis beats UCF in the AAC title game. Nobody in their right mind can say that 8-5 Memphis had a better season "on the field" than 12-1 UCF. That's nutso. Giving Memphis the playoff bid would mean valuing its one win over UCF more than all of those other games they lost put together.

If we played a league schedule where most teams played each other like a pro sports league, you would have a valid point. But the conferences are essentially leagues unto themselves, so the point should be that the conference is the gatekeeper for advancing into the national playoffs. If you're not the best team in the conference, as decided by a playoff game, then you can't be the best team in the country.

I think my point is even more valid than if there was a central league scheduler, because in that case, OOC schedules would likely be roughly equal - just as teams in the same NFL division have roughly equal "out of division" schedules.

But the current situation, where schools decide their own OOC games can make it even worse, as in my example, where UCF went 4-0 while Memphis went 0-4 and UCF played a much tougher OOC schedule.

As my example demonstrates, winning a conference does not prove you are the "best team in the conference". All it proves is that you were the best team in the conference *counting only conference games*, which is a different thing entirely.

And it may not even prove that. Because as you know, with a CCG, it's possible for Team X to go 8-0 in the conference while Team Y goes 5-3 in the conference, but if Team Y finishes second in the standings (as in the Big 12) or wins their division, and then beats Team X in the CCG, Team Y is the conference champ even though they weren't the best team in the conference, losing two more games than did team X.

So all in all, making the conferences the gate-keepers to a national playoff seems to be a pretty terrible idea.

(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.

Your premise is flawed... who says the rankings were fair? Too many folks jump on the false assumption that if Conf A's champ is ranked lower than Conf B's runner up, then it's somehow unfair to give a spot to team A1 over team B2... but what if the ranking is simply wrong? (I assume A1 and B2 never played each other head-to-head in the season in question).

Any decision to put poll rankings ahead of on-the-field championships is a step backward -- back to when we simply let the pollsters pick the champ, period.

Until we have a 6- or 8-team playoff with a G5 autobid, it is what it is.

I don’t think UCF can claim they were wrongly denied a playoff spot under the current system. Top 4 resumes were selected (more or less).

I also don’t think anyone should question their co-national title under the current system.

If you don’t like them claiming the title, then change the system so G5 teams are eligible for the playoff. They will need an auto bid to make that enforceable.

(09-28-2019 02:39 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:  Until we have a 6- or 8-team playoff with a G5 autobid, it is what it is.

I don’t think UCF can claim they were wrongly denied a playoff spot under the current system. Top 4 resumes were selected (more or less).

I also don’t think anyone should question their co-national title under the current system.

There are at least two very good reasons to question the notion that UCF has a "co-national title" from 2017 under the current system.

First, the "current system" recognizes only one valid national champ - the CFP winner. That's the system that all the FBS schools and conferences, including the AAC and UCF, agreed to for choosing their national champion. This system doesn't include anything else, not even the traditional AP and Coaches polls. So it's dishonest for anyone that agreed to the CFP method - such as the AAC schools- to claim that anyone but the CFP champ is the champion. It's reneging on a deal. It's as if the LA Lakers decided that they are the true NBA champs this past year and not the Toronto Raptors. Or the New Orleans Saints, because they were screwed out of the Super Bowl because of a bad call in the NFC title game, claimed that they and not the Patriots are the 2018 NFL champions. It's farcical.

Second, the term "co" means "mutually" or "jointly", which implies something that is shared 50-50. I mean, if I own 100 shares of Microsoft stock and Bill Gates owns 100 million, nobody would say we were "co-owners" of Microsoft. You use that term to imply roughly equal partners.

By my reckoning, in 2017, Alabama was chosen as champion by the CFP, the AP, the Coaches poll, and about 14 other "selectors". UCF was chosen by one, the Colley-Matrix computer.

So calling UCF the "co-champions" must mean you think the CM is by itself equal to all those other polls and computers that picked Alabama. Of course, that's as dumb as calling me and Bill Gates co-owners of Microsoft.

Heck, not only was UCF picked by only one of the so-called NCAA selectors, they were picked by arguably the dumbest one. The Colley-Matrix computer says that Alabama is the 2016 national champ (even though they lost the CFP title game to Clemson) and that Notre Dame is the 2012 national champ (even though they lost the BCS title game to Alabama). They are the only alleged 'selector' that picked those teams, just like they are the only ones that picked UCF.

That's about as dumb a computer as there is.

So saying UCF is in any way shape or form a valid national champion is about as dumb as any idea gets, so no, I will not shy away from calling it just that, LOL.

(09-28-2019 03:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-28-2019 02:39 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:  Until we have a 6- or 8-team playoff with a G5 autobid, it is what it is.

I don’t think UCF can claim they were wrongly denied a playoff spot under the current system. Top 4 resumes were selected (more or less).

I also don’t think anyone should question their co-national title under the current system.

There are at least two very good reasons to question the notion that UCF has a "co-national title" from 2017 under the current system.

First, the "current system" recognizes only one valid national champ - the CFP winner. That's the system that all the FBS schools and conferences, including the AAC and UCF, agreed to for choosing their national champion. This system doesn't include anything else, not even the traditional AP and Coaches polls. So it's dishonest for anyone that agreed to the CFP method - such as the AAC schools- to claim that anyone but the CFP champ is the champion. It's reneging on a deal. It's as if the LA Lakers decided that they are the true NBA champs this past year and not the Toronto Raptors. Or the New Orleans Saints, because they were screwed out of the Super Bowl because of a bad call in the NFC title game, claimed that they and not the Patriots are the 2018 NFL champions. It's farcical.

Second, the term "co" means "mutually" or "jointly", which implies something that is shared 50-50. I mean, if I own 100 shares of Microsoft stock and Bill Gates owns 100 million, nobody would say we were "co-owners" of Microsoft. You use that term to imply roughly equal partners.

By my reckoning, in 2017, Alabama was chosen as champion by the CFP, the AP, the Coaches poll, and about 14 other "selectors". UCF was chosen by one, the Colley-Matrix computer.

So calling UCF the "co-champions" must mean you think the CM is by itself equal to all those other polls and computers that picked Alabama. Of course, that's as dumb as calling me and Bill Gates co-owners of Microsoft.

Heck, not only was UCF picked by only one of the so-called NCAA selectors, they were picked by arguably the dumbest one. The Colley-Matrix computer says that Alabama is the 2016 national champ (even though they lost the CFP title game to Clemson) and that Notre Dame is the 2012 national champ (even though they lost the BCS title game to Alabama). They are the only alleged 'selector' that picked those teams, just like they are the only ones that picked UCF.

That's about as dumb a computer as there is.

So saying UCF is in any way shape or form a valid national champion is about as dumb as any idea gets, so no, I will not shy away from calling it just that, LOL.

You must have the market on salt cornered. Please don’t raise prices too much.