|
Post by Bevo on Oct 5, 2018 18:09:11 GMT
Yes, Bevo, I do really think the Cartel and its DPI ( Dr. Pepper Invitational ) event would continue to exclude a 37-0 UCF simply because of the AAC conference patch on its jerseys.
I wish I could say for certainty that you're right. I don't think you are. I'm pretty certain no 11-2 team would make it. But, an 11-1 Alabama team might.... if they were the bubble team.
If they did that, I think it would be the end of the current system.
Oh well... I like the way its working now. If you want a huge, inclusive tournament, you can watch all the other NCAA divisions. Not sure why you think EVERYONE has to do it YOUR way.
|
|
|
Post by bluehen on Oct 6, 2018 19:53:55 GMT
Yes, Bevo, I do really think the Cartel and its DPI ( Dr. Pepper Invitational ) event would continue to exclude a 37-0 UCF simply because of the AAC conference patch on its jerseys.
I wish I could say for certainty that you're right. I don't think you are. I'm pretty certain no 11-2 team would make it. But, an 11-1 Alabama team might.... if they were the bubble team.
If they did that, I think it would be the end of the current system.
Oh well... I like the way its working now. If you want a huge, inclusive tournament, you can watch all the other NCAA divisions. Not sure why you think EVERYONE has to do it YOUR way.
Not 'my way' Bevo but the way all other team championship sports on planet Earth do it.....youth to pros. The unique way FBS does it with exclusion and voting is the wrong way. The world is right. The Cartel is wrong.
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Oct 7, 2018 12:44:36 GMT
The playoff is officially underway.
On Saturday, 8 of the Top 25 teams lost.
5 of the top 14.
It took a couple of years, but Utah finally put 4 quarters together, smashing Stanford.
SDSt trailed Colorado state 28-0, and took the lead 30-28 on a safety.
MSST whooped Auburn, FLA beat LSU
OU defense allowed scores on their 1st 4 drives. First time since 2016 vs Houston (Tom Herman).
According to Sagarin 'strength of schedule' ratings, UCF schedule is ranked #158.
There are only 130 FBS teams.
|
|
|
Post by bluehen on Oct 7, 2018 13:29:41 GMT
UCF had a low ranked schedule last season but was a 'PROVEN" better team than the SEC champion with a relative high ranked schedule.
It plays in the only league its allowed to play in
|
|
|
Post by cjhawkeyes on Oct 7, 2018 15:28:18 GMT
I'm with bluehen in that I think the competitive gap is as big as it is because the system is rigged and basically eliminates G5 teams from the start. I don't know how much G5 teams would be able to close the gap with my idea of a fair system. However, if for example there were an 8 team playoff using my system, every team would, beyond very unlikely scenarios, control their playoff destiny. What would being able to control their destiny vs no chance do for G5 teams ability to recruit better players, get better TV deals, and attract a larger fanbase?
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Oct 7, 2018 15:59:18 GMT
UCF had a low ranked schedule last season but was a 'PROVEN" better team than the SEC champion with a relative high ranked schedule.
It plays in the only league its allowed to play in
UCF didn’t prove they were ‘a better team than the SEC Champ”. They proved they could beat them, in one game. Nothing more. UCF is not required to stay in the conference they’re in. In fact, I think there’s a great chance they’ll be in a different conference within a few years.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Oct 7, 2018 16:06:23 GMT
What would being able to control their destiny vs no chance do for G5 teams ability to recruit better players, get better TV deals, and attract a larger fanbase? [ There is only so much TV money to go around. The larger, high profile conferences suck up most of it. That, for the most part, is what drives the difference in competition level. It’s financial resources. Changing to your system as a seeding mechanism (which I favor) won’t change that. Any G5 team that starts to be successful, enough so to garner attention and TV viewers, will be snatched up by a P5 conference. And, the gap will continue. Maybe, a Large G5 tournament at the end of the season would generate enough money to help them. It would be played during the downtime waiting for the CFP games. It would compete against P5 Bowl games. I think such a tourney would be popular.
|
|
|
Post by bluehen on Oct 7, 2018 18:27:01 GMT
CJH, please check in more to help these guys understand
|
|
|
Post by ajbuckeye on Oct 8, 2018 2:21:46 GMT
UCF had a low ranked schedule last season but was a 'PROVEN" better team than the SEC champion with a relative high ranked schedule.
It plays in the only league its allowed to play in
UCF didn’t prove they were ‘a better team than the SEC Champ”. They proved they could beat them, in one game. Nothing more. UCF is not required to stay in the conference they’re in. In fact, I think there’s a great chance they’ll be in a different conference within a few years. Last year was a very clear example that the G5 has very limited access to the tourney. Both Bama and UCF beat exactly 2 top 25 teams all ranked between 15 and 25. Bama did not compete in a championship game. UCF competed and won a conference championship game. The committee has now set a precedence that the having the fewest losses by P5 teams is a priority. The G5 are clearly put in a separate category.
|
|
|
Post by bluehen on Oct 8, 2018 2:51:02 GMT
The greatest sport with the most ridiculous, unfair championship systems (1875-2018)
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Oct 8, 2018 6:51:43 GMT
The G5 are clearly put in a separate category. The G5 clearly ARE in a separate category. The committee merely showed they understand reality.
|
|
|
Post by Hero on Oct 8, 2018 8:27:25 GMT
UCF didn’t prove they were ‘a better team than the SEC Champ”. They proved they could beat them, in one game. Nothing more. UCF is not required to stay in the conference they’re in. In fact, I think there’s a great chance they’ll be in a different conference within a few years. The G5 are clearly put in a separate category. You are exactly right and it is high time for separation. I don’t expect The NCAA to do ANYTHING so I am hoping the P5 will ban together and end this useless illusion.
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Oct 8, 2018 11:36:21 GMT
UCF had a low ranked schedule last season but was a 'PROVEN" better team than the SEC champion with a relative high ranked schedule.
It plays in the only league its allowed to play in
UCF didn’t prove they were ‘a better team than the SEC Champ”. They proved they could beat them, in one game. Nothing more. UCF is not required to stay in the conference they’re in. In fact, I think there’s a great chance they’ll be in a different conference within a few years. AGreed, all it proved is that Auburn wasn't properly motivated.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Oct 8, 2018 11:53:17 GMT
I wonder how UCF would have played if their two previous games were against Bama and UGA?
|
|
|
Post by bluehen on Oct 8, 2018 12:49:06 GMT
UCF didn’t prove they were ‘a better team than the SEC Champ”. They proved they could beat them, in one game. Nothing more. UCF is not required to stay in the conference they’re in. In fact, I think there’s a great chance they’ll be in a different conference within a few years. AGreed, all it proved is that Auburn wasn't properly motivated.
Can't win with your logic, Bevo.
Had the SEC champion HYPOTHETICALLY whipped UCF convincingly it would have absolutely and unequivocally proven that UCF didn't belong...RIGHT !?? PROOF !!! However, when UCF ACTUALLY whips the SEC champion it means absolutely nothing, Right ?...just a fluke, Auburn didn't try , blah, blah, blah. You contend that every game matters but you are fully guilty of picking and choosing what games and results matter and what games and results don't.... just like the DPI system does....an obvious contradiction. That gullible and convoluted 'logic' is exactly why the cartel has been able to get away with its bullshit two class system. The CF mass fan base has been brainwashed.
Please take at least 10 minutes to think about how one 'result' would matter in the UCF/SEC Champ game and one result would not before responding. Thanks, Bevo.
|
|