|
Quote:
As a Michigan fan, I'm not sure they deserve to be in over UCF even if they beat Ohio State and Northwestern. But yeah, in this scenario I think it would be a total travesty if they put LSU in. I also think they'd probably do it anyway. |
Quote:
What's the point of the season if the results don't matter? I get what you're saying, but doesn't your method defeat the purpose of the season? Imagine if in the NFL last season they just decided that the Bills weren't one of the top 6 teams in the AFC. So they gave the Bengals the playoff spot instead. Or that the Saints were better than the Vikings and deserved the bye and 2 seed. That's essentially what you're asking for. |
And college footballs biggest problem is the facade that the non-power 5 schools are playing for the same championship. They aren't. The power 5 conferences should be a level above. The non-power 5 should be below and play for their own championship.
|
Quote:
If UCF really wanted to break into the CFP they would do what it takes to get blue-blood programs on their schedule like Alabama, Clemson or Ohio State. And yes, doing so would almost certainly require at best a "neutral-field" game and at worst something lopsided like a road game or an away-home-away arrangement. Win a game against one of those programs while going undefeated and they would make the CFP. But they are content to do what they do and reap the benefit of winning a bunch of games and talking about disprespect. I think they're a good team, and if the CFP were expanded to 8 they would deserve to be in. Unless/until that happens though, if they (or any other mid-major program that has a big year) really want to claim they deserve a chance in the 4-team CFP they need to schedule some elite teams and prove they have earned that shot. |
Quote:
You mean like Auburn? UCF- Auburn - Google Search |
Quote:
I hate the didnt want to be there argument, but.. Quote:
The problem with that line of thinking is how far in advance schedules are made. Earlier this week, for example, Clemson finished off their non conference schedule for 2030 and 2031. If you go back in time 12 years ago Alabama was a 6-7 team who hadnt played for a national Championship in 14 years. Clemson was an 8-5 team that hadn't won a conference championship in 15 years and a national championship in 25 years. Meanwhile Pitt was 2 years removed from being a conference champ I get that not all deals are done 12 years out, but it can be tough to predict. To your other point Neither Clemson nor Alabama wouldnt do a 3 for 1 with UCF. No juice in that squeeze |
Quote:
And yeah, Auburn was a classic example of a team that would be unmotivated. Scheduling...yeah..it's done wayyy in advance. UGA's isn't completely fleshed out yet, but the competitive non-conference games are mostly set though 2030. (Georgia and Clemson are doing home-and-home in 2029 and 2030.) There's just one gap; it looks like the Dawgs could play UCF in 2027 if so desired by both programs. Interestingly, Bama apparently doesn't schedule quite as far in advance as I'm used to seeing. They have *no* non-conference games on tap for 2024, and only three (Lousiana-Monroe in '25 and home/home with Notre Dame in '28-'29) from 2025 through 2030. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Now, at this point it may not be worth the effort because there's a non-zero chance the playoff expands before they'd be able to get a Bama, Ohio State, Clemson or Georgia on there. And at that point they're probably better off just scheduling as many wins as they can. |
Quote:
Outside of someone like Pat Hill when he was at Fresno State, I just don't see mid-major programs aggressively pursuing this kind of difficult out of conference schedule model to prove themselves, and probably for good reason - while it's fun for UCF to claim a national championship for last season, they are most likely better off financially by winning as many games as they can and positioning themselves as the latest mid-major "it school" like Boise State was under Petersen. And to Petersen and Boise State's credit, in time they did end up getting some very good teams on their schedules. |
Quote:
But yeah, it's not happening based on two seasons without a true signature win. The last thing the committee wants is to stick its neck out for UCF and then they lose 45-7 in the semis. They're going to need to be confident that UCF can hang with the very best. |
Quote:
But then the power programs get blasted for scheduling "soft" teams in non-conference play when the non-Power 5 teams are in one of their down periods. Scheduling is a two way street. |
Even in a bad year, a 0-12 UCF is better than the citadel or Presbyterian
|
Quote:
The counter point here is that only 2 of the 8 CFP semifinal games have been decided by less than 17 points. 3 of 8 have been decided by more than 30. We aren't exactly getting the most competitive match-ups. |
Quote:
The didn't want to be there argument is crap...When the SEC loses they didn't want to be there, when they win THEY ARE THE BEST EVAHHHHH!!!!!! As for scheduling, we all know schedules are typically made in advance, that being said always isn't the case. Washington State-Houston game in 2019 will be part of AdvoCare Texas Kickoff, held at NRG Stadium | The Spokesman-Review |
Quote:
I get that, but they played and beat an elite program last year in a NYD bowl. That to me says they belonged in the playoff, or at least in the discussion. |
Quote:
Would the result be any different if they put in Oklahoma or tOSU against Bama? At least we would see some new blood and reward a team for 2 consecutive unbeaten seasons. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Counter point UCF gets in and gets crushed it gives the committee carte blanche in future years to pass over mid majors in similar situations. |
Quote:
(FWIW, I don't think Bama is *that* unbeatable this year. My thinking that UGA gets handled fairly easily in the SECCG is more related to the Dawgs' shortcomings this year than Bama's strengths.) |
Quote:
(That's the only reason I could imagine that they'd say "Let's let 'em in so they get stomped and we never have to deal with them again!" What am I missing here?) |
Quote:
I very much think the whole system is designed to keep the blue bloods in. It is all about the money. We are going to have a team likely not lose a game for 2 seasons, including a win vs Auburn in a NYD game, and they won't have a shot to play for a title. Do you honestly think Kentucky, A and M, Florida, Miss St, all belong ranked where they are? Penn St? They are all ranked there so it can give the perception of the wins against them as good wins so the committee can justify their playoff selections. |
Quote:
I think not losing a game for 2 seasons at the very least should earn them a shot to prove it. I think it is unfair to claim Auburn wasn't motivated and discredit the win in the bowl game. That game to me proved they at least deserve a spot at the table. |
And UCF is doing it with 2 different HCs
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
College Football Playoff TV ratings way up in 2018, for a few reasons - SBNation.com 9% jump from the year before. A game with different teams may, as long as those teams ar tOSU, UM, ND, USC, Texas, Oklahoma. UCF, not so much. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Speaking of mismatches, we could have some real snoozers on 12/1 masquerading as four of the five big conference championships.
|
Quote:
Though if UCF wins, they'll again say "LSU didn't want to be there." (I get that they're a bit different than a team who that late into the season still had a chance at they playoff, but it'll still be said.) The 2030 deal is just crazy. Other than wanting to reserve teams before others do, I can't think of any good reason why there has to be that much advance planning. |
Quote:
I still find it fascinating, odd and unbelievable that Clemson ius referred to as a blue blood...or rich school... UCF is bigger school with a bigger richer alumni base...4 years ago people howled because Clemson was a #1 seed. Pushing bama to the edge "made them" maybe more so than basing them the next year. |
Quote:
And thats the problem. They went undefeated, beat an SEC power, then went undefeated again. What more do they need to do? |
Quote:
Full disclosure, I haven't worked in a college AD in 17 years. When i did, game contracts were shockingly long and brutally negotiated. I'm talking 200+ pages long... |
Quote:
They are though, embrace it. When I went to Washington we were terrible, I didn't grow up in Seattle so no ties to the school prior to being a student there so the expectations on us now are a bit weird to me. I just enjoy all the wins and hope Coach Pete stays there for a long time. |
Quote:
Play more than one decent opponent every other year? Be more than than 11-53 vs P5 opponents lifetime? |
That Auburn "didn't want to be there" baloney is a bunch of Cheez Whiz. It was 34-27 UCF, not 34-3. It was a battle; they didn't want to be the big program that lost to UCF, but they still lost.
|
Quote:
Do it more. As long as they’re in a middling conference they need to boost their SoS by playing elite teams in their OOC schedule. It’s great they’re undefeated, but the quality of competition matters. |
The problem I have with the scheduling argument is it punishes this year's players for what is a long-term strategic decision by the athletic department. When you're winless (0-12) three years ago, does it make any sense to be looking at scheduling to be in the playoff? The quality of a team changes far too much and too quickly, and scheduling is done too far in advance to have any sort of proper evaluation done based on that. Citing their lifetime record against P5 schools is even worse. Any vaguely sensible system must be based on evaluating this year's team only - I don't care how many championships they've won or not won in the past, or whether the team is Bama, Clemson, OSU, or SW Podunk State College. I care whether this team, on the field, earned a spot in the playoff or not. Period. Nothing else should matter. The whole 'beat big conference teams in a few more bowl games' just doesn't even address the main issue.
|
Quote:
And since they play a schedule that might not be noticeably tougher than a decent sized high school team in several states would face, that's precisely what happens NOW. They wouldn't belong in a playoff if you doubled the sized of the field for crying out loud. Their current ceiling is cute-but-irrelevant sidebar and if that's a problem for them then I'm hoping they try holding their breath until they turn blue next. |
Quote:
Quote:
It honestly depends on how you slice and dice it. I'm sure our South Carolinian friend will point to revenue numbers and say that Clemson isn't even a top 25 school in athletics revenue. This is true--they are even third in the ACC among schools that report (Duke doesn't). It's also true that because of TV and conference deals it is difficult to isolate football revenue. So Clemson is fighting a little uphill when compared to most SEC and Big Ten schools (and Texas). But, on the other side of the coin, Clemson has a top ten football budget. Their football outlay is in the same ballpark as anyone in the country. So, yeah, that's the argument for blue blood status. Plus they have that slide. |
Quote:
It's not though, if you can throw them out based soley on the schedule they play. Based on how they perform against that schedule? Sure. There's definitely an argument for their defense not being good enough, for example. The players and coaches can't just decide to play a tougher schedule this year though, so you're taking the possibility of them earning a spot totally out of their hands by making that an automatic disqualifier. |
Quote:
Now if UCF was being evaluated as a top-4 team by advanced metrics like FEI, S&P and even Sagarin then they could plead their case. But their best ranking among those is 6th in FEI and as low as 20th by Sagarin. |
Quote:
S&P is designed the best as far as giving mid-majors a chance at reaching the top 4 in their metric. Their strength of record component is a huge improvement over the one used by FEI in that it considers winning margin. Basically S&P leaves the door open for a team playing a very weak schedule to be a top 4 team, but you'd better look like a top 4 team against that schedule. Simply winning games isn't enough when you're playing a bottom 20 schedule. |
Quote:
Ben called it earlier, it's similar to the travesty of calling BYU a "national champ" back in the day. I have no problem "taking the possibility of them earning a spot totally out of their hands" aside from them having the rest of the country finish 7-4 (and even then ...) If the UCF program ceased to exist tomorrow, the only response I'd have is a shrug. They can, quite literally, fuck the hell off, no more relevant in D1 to me than a good high school team. |
Quote:
This I totally agree with. If you say they haven't been good enough given who they've played, that's a completely different thing than what was being stated earlier. |
Here's where the rub is to me. Let's say chaos happens this week.
Clemson, Bama, Michigan all lose. Fine put ucf in the playoff. Just understand that whomever you pair against them likely wins it all because of the reduced beating their bodies take that week. Outside if the top 10-15 individuals in the country there isn't much difference between a playoff wr or cb and a mid major. The difference is along the lines. |
Wow, I think y'all are way off on your assessment of UCF.
|
Quote:
I don’t buy that for one second. Have you seen Oklahoma play defense? Do you honestly think if someone plays them in round one they will take any more a beating than if they played UCF? Same goes for tOSU who gave up 51 to Maryland. UCF had athletes. Let’s not act like they are Radford. |
Bus carrying U of Washington band rolls onto side on highway
Scary stuff, glad everyone seems relatively ok. That stretch of road is no joke in bad weather. |
UCF QB McKenzie Milton goes down with a gruesome knee injury. Awful.
Video for the curious out there. Expected warning. Knee's are not made to look like that. FanCave on Twitter: "GRUESOME INJURY ALERT 🚨🤢 #UCF’s star QB McKenzie Milton just suffered one of the worst knee injuries that you’ll see. ðŸ¤* https://t.co/PpmJlFteSa" |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:19 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.