So let's legitimately talk UCF

[Yo Tee]

You havent watched much B12 football.... lmfao

I have, you haven't watched much AAC football. It's practically the same shit. NOONE PLAYS DEFENSE lol

 

[Red_Alert]

Blahburn lost 4 games so far this season just so they wouldn't have to play UCF in another NY6 bowl. That's just a fucking fact.

 

[NU_FTW]

I don't think we are one of the 4 best. I do think Clemson, ND, Michigan, Georgia and Bama, IN THAT ORDER, are better than UCF. But, I'm not gonna sit here and say they don't deserve to be in the playoff. G5 teams will always be met with this stigma. We play crappy schedules. Yes, but, outside of maybe 2-3 games, so to mostly ALL P5 teams. If anyone thinks that UCF isn't AT LEAST a top 10 team in the country right now, they don't know college football. Sorry if that hurts anyone's feelings.

UCF is aptly ranked where they currently are, that was proven tonight.

 

[4down20]

Clearly their resume isn't good enough to be top 4

Correct

However does anyone here legitimately think UCF couldn't compete with pretty much anyone ?

Me

I debate on this this forum all the time with people about expanding the playoff and I hear consistently " it's the committees job to pick the 4 best teams "

Ok . So why does the SoS matter then ? Is it not entirely possible UCF is one of the 4 best teams in the country even if their resume isn't one of the 4 best ?

SoS matters because there are a large number of teams who can accomplish the same thing. It's also more difficult to go undefeated when you are playing even decent teams week after week. I look at what UCF did and there is no way in hell they are going undefeated in the SEC. 3 loss team minimum on a Texas A&M schedule, probably 4 or 5 after injuries start happening and the team loses it's chance on goals.

If you concede it is POSSIBLE for them to actually be one of the 4 best teams despite their resume then why do we hold UCF ( and other G5) to a higher standard than we do P5?

This is not me advocating for UCF. I'm just curious as to why we hold G5 teams to a "deserving " standard we don't hold P5 teams to

This is bullshit, you are wanting to hold them to a lower standard. You just got done trying to claim SoS was meaningless as the way to lower the standard, then you try to spin it around as if they are being held to a higher standard? Fuck off.

 

[NU_FTW]

I have, you haven't watched much AAC football. It's practically the same shit. NOONE PLAYS DEFENSE lol

Not even close.... lmfao the offenses in the B12 are way over powered compared to defenses. AAC doesnt hold a candle to it, the closest is UCF which would maybe be 4th in the B12

 

[Yo Tee]

If Army can almost beat Oklahoma, UCF can beat Oklahoma.
If Purdue can beat Ohio State, UCF can beat Ohio State.
If Oklahoma State can beat West Virginia, UCF can beat West Virginia.
If Florida can beat LSU, UCF can beat LSU.
If USC can beat Washington State, UCF can beat Washington State.

Come at me.

 

[NU_FTW]

If Army can almost beat Oklahoma, UCF can beat Oklahoma.
If Purdue can beat Ohio State, UCF can beat Ohio State.
If Oklahoma State can beat West Virginia, UCF can beat West Virginia.
If Florida can beat LSU, UCF can beat LSU.
If USC can beat Washington State, UCF can beat Washington State.

Come at me.

Never get high on your own supply

 

[Cafe_Puro]

Why does SOS matter? This is to suggest all teams and records are equal and or to say the rode UCF or tulane or boise took is just as tough as anyone else in the country correct?

Well i have a few thoughts. You can find sooo many comments related to how or why bama played citadel in nov.. Or LSU vs Rice. You would also see comments about how the SEC pads their records with such teams. So this is to suggest the SEC shouldnt play those teams. WHY? If SOS doesnt matter and teams and conferences are equal?

But confs arent equal. Lower tiers are so due to many factors.. That isnt to say a cincy or hou or UCF arent good teams. It is to point out they play more games vs rice/citadale caliber teams than P5 teams.

So on one hand we would fault SEC for those games and celebrate UCF for having a streak against 95% aac teams? Interesting.. Also hypocritical.

 

[WizardHawk]

Clearly their resume isn't good enough to be top 4

However does anyone here legitimately think UCF couldn't compete with pretty much anyone ?

I debate on this this forum all the time with people about expanding the playoff and I hear consistently " it's the committees job to pick the 4 best teams "

Ok . So why does the SoS matter then ? Is it not entirely possible UCF is one of the 4 best teams in the country even if their resume isn't one of the 4 best ?

If you concede it is POSSIBLE for them to actually be one of the 4 best teams despite their resume then why do we hold UCF ( and other G5) to a higher standard than we do P5?

This is not me advocating for UCF. I'm just curious as to why we hold G5 teams to a "deserving " standard we don't hold P5 teams to

Could they compete? Maybe. There isn't any proof and that's the point. There isn't enough cross threads between conferences.

Does this mean it somehow makes a case for expanded playoffs? Good God no, it does not.

I'll say this again and again until some of you snap out of it and face reality. There's a difference between winning a post season tournament and being crowned the best team. They are not the same thing. They haven't ever been the same thing, yet some of you are under this misconception.

The SB championship doesn't always go to the best team from that season. Nor the WS champ or the NBA championship. We have seen upstarts win March Madness.

We could devise a format for 32 teams and sooner or later a seed above 20 would win it. That doesn't somehow justify they were the best team in college football, it simply means they would be the last team standing.

No, we do NOT need yet another bloated fucking tournament to give more participation trophies like candy to dozens of teams that can then be lazy and get in on half assed schedules and mediocre results as would inevitably happen. Clearly we also don't need the added bullshit of automatic participation trophies and all that baggage that comes with it, but even if you just expanded the committee it's nothing but a way to entirely water down the sport yet again under the guise that it somehow adds fairness that it simply can't.

 

[4down20]

#2 in total offense
#5 in 3rd down conversions
#4 in rushing offense
#9 in sacks allowed
#7 in scoring offense
#2 in turnover margin

So only 3 stats matter in the judgement of a team?

All those stats you quote are basically bullshit that don't take opponent strength into account.

 

[Yo Tee]

UCF is aptly ranked where they currently are, that was proven tonight.

Not after the Ohio State and West Virginia games. We should be ranked ahead of them.

 

[4down20]

To say SoS doesn't matter is to say all 10-2 teams are equal, that all 9-3 teams are equal, etc.

And if you believe that, you're just fucking stupid and not much can be done to help you.

 

[Yo Tee]

All those stats you quote are basically bullshit that don't take opponent strength into account.

Shows how good we are against the teams we play. That's all that needs to be accounted for.

 

[Yo Tee]

To say SoS doesn't matter is to say all 10-2 teams are equal, that all 9-3 teams are equal, etc.

And if you believe that, you're just fucking stupid and not much can be done to help you.

Why does it only matter to G5 teams though? Bama wasn't punished in the beginning of the year because their SoS was garbage.

 

[4down20]

Shows how good we are against the teams we play. That's all that needs to be accounted for.

Except wrong, rushing for 100 yards against Alabama means a hell of a lot more than rushing for 100 yards against UTEP and if you don't understand that, then what can be said?

 

[4down20]

Why does it only matter to G5 teams though? Bama wasn't punished in the beginning of the year because their SoS was garbage.

UCF has one of the worst schedules in FBS college football.

Alabama is getting shit for having a schedule in the top50% of college football, and have basically had to go undefeated to maintain.

The difference between the 2 is HUGE.

 

[Yo Tee]

Except wrong, rushing for 100 yards against Alabama means a hell of a lot more than rushing for 100 yards against UTEP and if you don't understand that, then what can be said?

10-0 is 10-0. There's no asterisk anywhere when you finish undefeated saying *they played a really bad schedule.

 

[GoldRusher]

UCF would finish 2nd or 3rd.

No, at best 4th. Give em a few years of good recruiting then yea, I'd buy some of that. UCF just has a punchers chance at best right now vs OU, WVU, Texas and ISU.

Now the rest... good chance to win iyam.

KU is awful
TCU sucks
KState sucks
TT sucks now, they were ok for a few weeks this year
Baylor is terrible

 

[NU_FTW]

Could they compete? Maybe. There isn't any proof and that's the point. There isn't enough cross threads between conferences.

Does this mean it somehow makes a case for expanded playoffs? Good God no, it does not.

I'll say this again and again until some of you snap out of it and face reality. There's a difference between winning a post season tournament and being crowned the best team. They are not the same thing. They haven't ever been the same thing, yet some of you are under this misconception.

The SB championship doesn't always go to the best team from that season. Nor the WS champ or the NBA championship. We have seen upstarts win March Madness.

We could devise a format for 32 teams and sooner or later a seed above 20 would win it. That doesn't somehow justify they were the best team in college football, it simply means they would be the last team standing.

No, we do NOT need yet another bloated fucking tournament to give more participation trophies like candy to dozens of teams that can then be lazy and get in on half assed schedules and mediocre results as would inevitably happen. Clearly we also don't need the added bullshit of automatic participation trophies and all that baggage that comes with it, but even if you just expanded the committee it's nothing but a way to entirely water down the sport yet again under the guise that it somehow adds fairness that it simply can't.

Math actually 100% backs this up

Since 1995, the team with the best regular season record has won the World Series just 16% of the time. The baseball playoffs don't reward skill

The fact is, the team with the best record wins the Super Bowl less than half of the time. It's actually more common for a worse team to win!

 

[4down20]

10-0 is 10-0. There's no asterisk anywhere when you finish undefeated saying *they played a really bad schedule.

It's not an asterick, you just make up fake trophies and look like a joke while the real champion wins the playoffs.