2018 College Football Thread

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by bob

Unrelated question - is there any path for UCF to get into the playoff. I'm thinking maybe this:

- UGA loses to Alabama in the SEC championship game
- Washington St loses again
- Texas wins Big 12
- Northwestern wins Big 10

Would that do it? I think that would wipe everyone 4 - 10 ahead of them out except LSU, but would they really keep an undefeated team out for a 2 loss non-conference champ?

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.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

I want to see the best 4 (or 8 or 16 or 32) teams. I don't care about winning a division. What's absurd is that somehow the system ranked the team that "everyone knew" was the best team at #4. Their #4 seed would be favored against any other team in the country. Indeed, they were favored in both playoff games against the supposedly-better higher seeds.

Oh, and by the way, they beat those higher seeds, thus justifying what "everyone knew," but no one was willing to say. Yet some folks want to leave the best team out because of some dumb construct.

And while I'm ranting about the stupidity of stuff that's just accepted in college football, I fully expect Georgia to lose by 13 or so on December 1st, but let's enter into a fantasy world where there's another thriller like last year's, with Bama winning in overtime. After such a game, we'd expect UGA to drop to #8 or so from #5. That's right, all you people seem perfectly fine with a setup where #5 loses to #1 in a tight game and somehow is deemed worse. If the 5th-best team is only an eyelash worse than the 1st-best, the rankings should be adjusted to make them #3 or #4. It's insanity to say that they somehow "got worse" by outperforming their ranking, but it happens all the time. Stoopid.

Yes, I realize that some view it as "best performance." Those people gave us BYU in '84 and I will never forgive them for that. Stoopid.

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.

[RainMaker]

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.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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.

I'm not sure this is a "problem". Let's take a look at 2017 & 2018's mid-major du jour UCF: Yes, they are riding a 23-game winning streak - good for them! But who have they played? The best teams in the their conference are who, Houston and Cincinnati? Hardly programs that stand out among the better programs in the Power-5 conferences. And who did they play out of conference the past two seasons? S. Carolina St, FIU and Pitt this year and FIU, Maryland and Austin Peay last year.

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.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

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.t.

You mean like Auburn?

UCF- Auburn - Google Search

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Lathum

You mean like Auburn?

UCF- Auburn - Google Search

I hate the didnt want to be there argument, but..

Originally Posted by dawgfan

I'm not sure this is a "problem". Let's take a look at 2017 & 2018's mid-major du jour UCF: Yes, they are riding a 23-game winning streak - good for them! But who have they played? The best teams in the their conference are who, Houston and Cincinnati? Hardly programs that stand out among the better programs in the Power-5 conferences. And who did they play out of conference the past two seasons? S. Carolina St, FIU and Pitt this year and FIU, Maryland and Austin Peay last year.

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.

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

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

What's the point of the season if the results don't matter?

The results DO matter, but in the case where everyone doesn't play a representative schedule (thus the NFL piece you mentioned is inapplicable here,) and there's an absurdly small playoff field, the purpose of the season *has* to be "to validate the rankings." #7 loses to #1 by 2 points on the road, that's a result that matters--to validate that #7 deserves to be ranked higher than #7 or that #1 deserves to be ranked lower than #1. But the college football world has somehow long accepted that in that scenario #7 should drop. That's just dumb.


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.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Lathum

You mean like Auburn?

UCF- Auburn - Google Search

No, I mean if they want to really have a shot at playing in the CFP when they are a member of the AAC they are going to have to play - and beat - one of the truly elite programs out there like the three I listed.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

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.

Yep, it wouldn't be easy for teams like UCF to bump up their scheduling quickly. Most OOC schedules are done several years in advance. But if a mid-major program really, truly wants to get their shot in the CFP as it is currently composed, they'll have to schedule an elite team each year.

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.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

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

Yeah, schedules are done way in advance. And with that delay you inevitably will have some programs that unexpectedly decline. I fully cop to the reality that it's a tough deal. With that said, if a program really wanted to prove they are big-time, they'd schedule big-time programs, even if it means taking a road trip every time. Schedule a road trip to USC on the assumption that they'll rise again. Schedule a road trip to Alabama because, well, chances are Alabama will be really good.

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.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

But if a mid-major program really, truly wants to get their shot in the CFP as it is currently composed, they'll have to schedule an elite team each year.

I can think of another path in the four-team playoff. Let's say this year they go to a top-tier non-playoff bowl and beat a team that's not licking uber-recent wounds--this year's LSU team would be an excellent candidate, for example--they could score a neutral-site "kickoff classic" type game against...another LSU type team. Then beat an eventual 10-2 LSU/Notre Dame/Michigan/etc. (or if they're 8-4/9-3 and UCF beats 'em as badly as Bama/Ohio State did) in week 1 and run the table, and they're likely in.


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.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Yeah, schedules are done way in advance. And with that delay you inevitably will have some programs that unexpectedly decline. I fully cop to the reality that it's a tough deal. With that said, if a program really wanted to prove they are big-time, they'd schedule big-time programs, even if it means taking a road trip every time. Schedule a road trip to USC on the assumption that they'll rise again. Schedule a road trip to Alabama because, well, chances are Alabama will be really good.

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.

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.

[MrBug708]

Even in a bad year, a 0-12 UCF is better than the citadel or Presbyterian

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

I can think of another path in the four-team playoff. Let's say this year they go to a top-tier non-playoff bowl and beat a team that's not licking uber-recent wounds--this year's LSU team would be an excellent candidate, for example--they could score a neutral-site "kickoff classic" type game against...another LSU type team. Then beat an eventual 10-2 LSU/Notre Dame/Michigan/etc. (or if they're 8-4/9-3 and UCF beats 'em as badly as Bama/Ohio State did) in week 1 and run the table, and they're likely in.


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.

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.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

I hate the didnt want to be there argument, but..





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

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

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

No, I mean if they want to really have a shot at playing in the CFP when they are a member of the AAC they are going to have to play - and beat - one of the truly elite programs out there like the three I listed.

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.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

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.

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.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by digamma

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.

I suspect this is a case where perception is more important than reality. Ohio State getting spanked by Clemson is one thing, but a mid-major getting exposed gets viewed as something else entirely.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

I suspect this is a case where perception is more important than reality. Ohio State getting spanked by Clemson is one thing, but a mid-major getting exposed gets viewed as something else entirely.

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.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Would the result be any different if they put in Oklahoma or tOSU against Bama?

If you believe that UCF is as good as those teams, then, no, it wouldn't. But if you don't, then sure it'd be different.


(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.)

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Lathum

UCF gets in and gets crushed it gives the committee carte blanche in future years to pass over mid majors in similar situations.

Scratching my head on what your point is here. Are you suggesting that there's some grand conspiracy to keep mid-majors out of the big game?



(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?)

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Scratching my head on what your point is here. Are you suggesting that there's some grand conspiracy to keep mid-majors out of the big game?



(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?)

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.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

If you believe that UCF is as good as those teams, then, no, it wouldn't. But if you don't, then sure it'd be different.


(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.)

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.

[tarcone]

And UCF is doing it with 2 different HCs

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I very much think the whole system is designed to keep the blue bloods in. It is all about the money.

How'd Bama-Clemson do last year? I don't know the answer. Honest question. But I'd imagine that a game with a team other than the usual suspects would draw better ratings and make more money.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

How'd Bama-Clemson do last year? I don't know the answer. Honest question. But I'd imagine that a game with a team other than the usual suspects would draw better ratings and make more money.

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.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Let's say this year they go to a top-tier non-playoff bowl and beat a team that's not licking uber-recent wounds--this year's LSU team would be an excellent candidate, for example

Heh. I pulled LSU out of my butt. Just checked multiple bowl projections and it seems UCF vs. LSU is a real possibility. I think that's a great scenario for UCF's long-term chances.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Lathum

College Football Playoff TV ratings way up in 2018, for a few reasons - SBNation.com

9% jump from the year before.

I'd forgotten about the New Year's Eve stupidity, and you seem to be ignoring it. I'm certain that getting away from 12/31 was a *much* bigger factor than a bunch of people excited to see Bama-Clemson III.

[Ben E Lou]

Speaking of mismatches, we could have some real snoozers on 12/1 masquerading as four of the five big conference championships.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Heh. I pulled LSU out of my butt. Just checked multiple bowl projections and it seems UCF vs. LSU is a real possibility. I think that's a great scenario for UCF's long-term chances.

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.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I very much think the whole system is designed to keep the blue bloods in. It is all about the money.

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.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

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.)
.

And thats the problem.

They went undefeated, beat an SEC power, then went undefeated again. What more do they need to do?

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

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.

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...

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

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.

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.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Lathum

And thats the problem. They went undefeated, beat an SEC power, then went undefeated again. What more do they need to do?

Play more than one decent opponent every other year?

Be more than than 11-53 vs P5 opponents lifetime?

[bbgunn]

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.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Lathum

And thats the problem.

They went undefeated, beat an SEC power, then went undefeated again. What more do they need to do?

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.

[Brian Swartz]

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.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Any vaguely sensible system must be based on evaluating this year's team only

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.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

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.

Originally Posted by Lathum

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.

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.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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.

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.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

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.

I recognize how difficult it is to adjust schedules given how far in advance they are typically put together, and the reality that blue bloods have little incentive to schedule a high-performing mid major like UCF. So the tough truth is, yes, given a not particularly rigorous schedule, they stand little chance of making the CFP. But I’m failing to see how that’s a bad thing. Given the much wider the disparity is between the best and the worst in FBS football compared to the NFL, schedule difficulty should matter.

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.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

I recognize how difficult it is to adjust schedules given how far in advance they are typically put together, and the reality that blue bloods have little incentive to schedule a high-performing mid major like UCF. So the tough truth is, yes, given a not particularly rigorous schedule, they stand little chance of making the CFP. But I’m failing to see how that’s a bad thing. Given the much wider the disparity is between the best and the worst in FBS football compared to the NFL, schedule difficulty should matter.

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.

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.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

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.

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.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Atocep

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.

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.

[CU Tiger]

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.

[Julio Riddols]

Wow, I think y'all are way off on your assessment of UCF.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

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.

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.

[Lathum]

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.

[Scoobz0202]

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"