I get so tired of the "but they don't play anybody" argument. I am sure they play the best schedule they can. They are in the best Group of Five conference. Its not like they turned down offers from the ACC or SEC. Heck, they would join the Pac 12 if they could. They are playing at the highest level that is currently available to them. The system definitely needs to change.
UCF National Champions
- Thread starter froglash88
- Start date
punter9
Active Member
man I am just thankful we are in the Big 12. I remembering feeling this way about the Rosebowl team. It just didn't seem right that a team like that didn't get a chance. Now do I still feel like we have to be undefeated to play for a natty.....kinda......but before I didn't feel like there was a path to a natty
i don't think the SECSECSEC is all that pissed off about anything coming off two wins against other P5 conference champions.
hiphopfroggy
Active Member
Bama's schedule was no better than UCF's, can't hang your only hat on a victory over a team that lost to Troy, not buying it.
Maybe I am the [ the old ricardo ] in this situation. If the G5 conferences and schools want to be a part of the CFP process and get all of the benefits of the process including the money, and then complain about the results, then I say screw them. IMO they are acting so petty that when the next round of realignment happens I hope the P5 leaves and forms their own division of football leaving all of the G5 out in the cold.
And UCF is hanging their hat on beating the team that lost to LSU.
Bama's schedule was significantly better than UCF's. It's not really even remotely debatable.
It is substantially better than UCF according to every single metric I have seen.
The Frog to be Named Later
Active Member
No maybe about it. Pull up the rope I've got mine.
I'm all about equal OPPORTUNITY for all. This system certainly doesn't provide it.
hiphopfroggy
Active Member
How so? If you sell me LSU who lost to Troy I'm not buying it. Bama didn't beat a single ranked opponent and LOST to Auburn. Miss st and Fresno are not top 25 teams, Memphis and USF are. Bama doesn't get points for getting the $%#$ kicked out of them by the team UCF beat in their NY6 bowl.
UCF has 2 better wins than Bama had during the regular season, are conference champions, are undefeated with a better winning %, and beat Auburn who Bama and Georgia lost to. UCF beats Bama by every metric, impossible to logically crown Georgia or Bama over UCF. If they wanted to be champs don't lose to Auburn.
This system does have equal opportunity. UCF's AD failed the team by scheduling such terrible non conference schedule. He had his chance to help his team get a good SOS before the season even started. He did not even attempt to create a good schedule. That is nobodies fault but his own.
As unfair as it is for UCF to go undefeated and not get a shot at the playoff, it is equally unfair to punish teams that have substantially harder SOS for having a loss. Especially when you consider that the one main criteria the committee is supposed to look at is SOS.
Frog-in-law1995
Active Member
Sagarin SOS rankings: Bama 47, UCF 72.
ESPN strength of record rankings (prior to bowl season): Bama 2, UCF 6
ESPN strength of record rankings (prior to bowl season): Bama 2, UCF 6
Mississippi State is a ranked team. So is LSU. USF isn't ranked in the CFP poll. Memphis probably won't be ranked in either poll when the final polls come out. What the hell are you talking about? At least be remotely factual.
If Alabama played UCF tomorrow, they'd probably be favored by two touchdowns.
Yes, but what group decided that Mississippi State should be ranked and that USF/ Memphis shouldn't?
You're almost there, keep going.
hiphopfroggy
Active Member
Point is that a 4 loss Miss st who lost to 6-6 Ole Miss late in the season has no business being ranked, same as Fresno had no business being ranked, same as a team that lost to Troy had no business being ranked. They were ranked there by the committee to prop up Bama's schedule.
However, even if I were to concede this point, both Bama and UCF had 3 wins over ranked opponents before bowl season, with UCF having a conference championship, better winning percentage and undefeated season while Bama lost to 3 loss Auburn.
If you want to win a Natty don't lose to 3 loss Auburn, Bama had their chance and failed.
Sagarin SOS (http://sagarin.com/sports/cfsend.htm)
Alabama - 47
UGA - 18
OU - 6
Clemson - 4
UCF - 72
Massey SOS (https://www.masseyratings.com/cf/fbs/ratings)
Alabama - 9
UGA - 2
OU - 6
Clemson - 4
UCF - 64
Nearly every other computer metric will have similar SOS rankings.
So LSU and MSU do not count as ranked wins, but memphis and USF do? That makes no sense at all...
hiphopfroggy
Active Member
Please see above post #55 for my response.
Also, are a SOS of 47 and 9 considered similar?
The Frog to be Named Later
Active Member
The fact that Wex liked your post tells you all you need to know. The current system (and the previous one) in no way shape or form provide equal opportunity to compete for the national championship*. Period dot fact. Just like when we were on the outside, all UCF can do is win the games on their schedule (and as mentioned before, it's not easy to build a "competitive" schedule when your not in the club). The fact that they (and us in the past) weren't given an opportunity to compete for a championship is a travesty. If they really are little sisters of the poor and not in the same class then whoever they drew them should have a default bye -- much like SEC late season cupckaes. Ask Auburn/Wisky/Bama/OU how that's worked out.
*compete in the Post season ESPN invitational tourney
I will. Here are the teams USF beat this year prior to their Bowl Game with Tech and their records:
San Jose State (2-11)
Stony Brook (didn't even look it up, it's Stony Brook)
Illinois (2-10)
Temple (7-6)
East Carolina (3-9)
Cincinnati (4-8)
Tulane (5-7)
Connecticut (3-9)
Tulsa (2-10)
They lost to 7-4 Houston and 12-0 UCF. So the combined records of all the FBS teams they beat was 28 wins and 70 losses. I mean, it's almost impossible to play a schedule that bad. An AAC schedule where you're not playing Navy, Memphis or SMU is absolutely TERRIBLE. They played 3 bowl teams ALL YEAR and the only one they beat was mighty Temple. Maybe the committee was doing their jobs and actually looking at who teams play, etc instead of just seeing a W and an L and ranking teams accordingly. There is no justification whatsoever for USF to be a ranked team. That's why the committee doesn't have them ranked. They didn't beat anyone who was even average all year long, unless you want to consider Temple average.
As for Memphis, they are ranked as of now.
Deep Purple
Full Member
Last edited:
