The constant media blitz has brought unprecedented attention to the program. They're without a doubt getting more selling points to recruits. You knock off Auburn on National Television and you don't have to settle for 3-star recruits-at-best.
Now you can be annoyed by it, that's fine, but that doesn't mean the school isn't taking in money on merch. All programs are built from success. UCF is finding a lot of success and they're rapidly growing.
UCF is currently ranked #56 in recruiting and has 0 recruits above a 3 star.
They finished #70 last year, with the same thing. And it's probably about where they will finish this year unless some bigger recruits come out of no where.
At the end of the day, it's still UCF and if you think a recruit is gonna be picking a school because of national championship claims with fake trophies and coaches bonuses be paid, or because Boise St has a blue field or because Oregon has a bunch of uniforms, then you simply think recruits are fucking stupid.
I'm not annoyed by anything, I'm just not buying what the hell it is you are selling because it's just plain and simple not true.
Too bad UCF's game with (2-8) North Carolina got cancelled this season.
If it hadn't they could get credit for beating them like those P5's Cal, Pitt, Va Tech, Miami, Syracuse, Virginia, Georgia Tech, and Duke, all do.
Cause Notre Dame's out of conference schedule is always so grueling.
Wait...
I posted this in another thread ( which actually was the impetus for this thread ) but let's use a hypothetical
Bama loses to UGA and finishes with a SoS in the mid 60s.
Michigan wins out and finishes with an SOS in the mid 20s.
Every person here knows there would be people here ( and in the CFB world ) advocating for Bama based on eye test
So how is that different from
ND wins out and finishes with a mid 70s SoS
UCF wins out and finishes with a mid 110s SoS
Is the difference between 25 and 65 actually less than 75 and 115? It very well could be . I'm simply not sure .
BCF had it as a projected final sos of 73 a few weeks ago . May be different nowI'm not saying our schedule has been good. But I haven't seen anything out there to suggest it's a mid 70's schedule.
BCF had it as a projected final sos of 73 a few weeks ago . May be different now
Okay, getting off you guys butt for not having a life and getting back on topic....something came into my mind with the BC loss to FSU.
Most rational people agree that while the upper G5 teams are pretty good, they wouldn't be able to survive the grind of a P5 schedule. Well guess what? The majority of P5 schools can't survive the grind of a P5 schedule either!
BC was looking good. Then they had to play the best team in the ACC one week in Clemson. And immediately the next week they are in the grind of having to play one of the worst teams in the ACC this year FSU. And they lose to them. They weren't capable of overcoming that ass whooping they got from Clem. This happens all the time. That P5 grind is very difficult and is normally only survived by one of two groups:
- Those P5 "biggies" that are fortunate enough to recruit top level depth that can play immediately and don't necessarily have to be developed over time.
- The non "biggie" P5 teams that avoid injuries during the year and do not have to rely on depth.
In my opinion there are far too many division one teams. If a team can go undefeated and can't sniff a title, they don't deserve to be in the top tier division. We need to cut 75 or so teams out of division one.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
That was kind of the point. A good man P5 schools can't survive the P5 grind either. But, they are capable of ruining the season of contenders by getting up for a game or two along the way.I don’t think Boston College would survive the “grind” of the AAC. If they can’t run the table against Wake Forest, Purdue, Louisville, NC State, and Temple why would they be able to run the table against SMU, Houston, ECU, cincinnati and Temple?
Really the opposite is true. Most sports in this country don't crown the best team. They hold a tournament at seasons end and crown the last one standing.College football has never had real national champions anyway.
B12 is the only P5 left with the format we all had at one time of a balanced schedule league. Those identical records were more common for all then. Less common with the mega conferences with odd schedules that skip so vastly different quality of opponents from the other divisions within.That was kind of the point. A good man P5 schools can't survive the P5 grind either. But, they are capable of ruining the season of contenders by getting up for a game or two along the way.
Hell, I was just looking at the standings for all the P5s. One thing I thought was crazy is that right now 50% of the Big 12 teams have 3-5 conference records! Baylor, TCU, K-State, Texas Tech and Oklahoma State. That's a whole lot of mediocrity or a case of up/down, up/down, up/down...or both. Oklahoma State is one of those 3-5 teams. Two of their three wins are over Texas and West Virginia, 2/3s of the top three. And two of their five losses are a one point loss to OU and a six point loss to Iowa State. Point being they can't survive the grind either.