Does UCF have a right to claim the National Championship?

[whaler11]

I mostly agree except that you are buying into the starting point which might or might not be valid. The computer rankings are not infallible and in an individual case might overlook a team here and there. Teams like Boise, BYU, TCU at times and maybe even this year's UCF. There is a bias on strength of schedule that might be overweighted against a team with a computerized weaker schedule. While I suspect UCF might have a rough time with an Alabama, UCF did beat Auburn and will never be able to show how that might have done against any of the 4 selected teams. They beat everyone on their schedule which is a roster of D1 teams.

So all the computers that make up the composite have a blind spot for a certain type of team. A lucky coincidence it’s that list of teams?

 

[J187Money]

So all the computers that make up the composite have a blind spot for a certain type of team. A lucky coincidence it’s that list of teams?

By the end of the season that works itself out. Wisconsin was dinged by the computers UNTIL they were 12-0 and the only undefeated team. At that point, the composite rankings had Wisconsin #1.

UCF was #9 in the final composite rankings. Had they played GT and won, they might have been #7 or #8. The bad teams on the UCF schedule were BAD (UCONN included).

 

[cohenzone]

So all the computers that make up the composite have a blind spot for a certain type of team. A lucky coincidence it’s that list of teams?

That they have a programmed assumption about strength that overlooks the possibility that strength of schedule is irrelevant to whether or not a team with a “weak” schedule is actually the best team. As I said, the computer is generally okay, but not perfect. UCF did knock off a team that beat a few of the finalists.

 

[whaler11]

That they have a programmed assumption about strength that overlooks the possibility that strength of schedule is irrelevant to whether or not a team with a “weak” schedule is actually the best team. As I said, the computer is generally okay, but not perfect. UCF did knock off a team that beat a few of the finalists.

I’ll put it gently. You don’t know what you are talking about.

 

[HuskyHawk]

That they have a programmed assumption about strength that overlooks the possibility that strength of schedule is irrelevant to whether or not a team with a “weak” schedule is actually the best team. As I said, the computer is generally okay, but not perfect. UCF did knock off a team that beat a few of the finalists.

This. The computers all use human estimates and rankings as their base point, and retain those flaws all the way to the end. In a much longer season with more games it might work out, but they play so few against common opponents that it's all but impossible to accurately gauge these teams.

 

[Husky68]

Playing Auburn's schedule...LSU, Alabama, Georgia twice, Clemson....I wonder if UCF would be undefeated?

Wouldn't have to be, could have lost 2of those games and been in CFP just like Auburn would have been if they didn't lose game #3 to Georgia. Why does UCF have to go undefeated against "better" schedules when the teams in the CFP didn't have to?

 

[whaler11]

By the end of the season that works itself out. Wisconsin was dinged by the computers UNTIL they were 12-0 and the only undefeated team. At that point, the composite rankings had Wisconsin #1.

UCF was #9 in the final composite rankings. Had they played GT and won, they might have been #7 or #8. The bad teams on the UCF schedule were BAD (UCONN included).

This whole conversation is about one thing and one thing only:

UConn isn’t in the cartel so the cartel is bad.

When UConn was in the Big East nobody here would give a damn when mid-major schools were getting hosed in seeding/location/entry into the NCAA.

UCF didn’t have a top 4 resume. They take 4 teams. They can’t control who will play them and they can’t control that the AAC East was MAC like - but there hasn’t been a legitimate argument made yet for them to be in the Top 4.

 

[whaler11]

This. The computers all use human estimates and rankings as their base point, and retain those flaws all the way to the end. In a much longer season with more games it might work out, but they play so few against common opponents that it's all but impossible to accurately gauge these teams.

No they don’t.

I guess if you invent how things work then you can point out the flaws in their made up design.

 

[Fishy]

This whole conversation is about one thing and one thing only:

UConn isn’t in the cartel so the cartel is bad.

When UConn was in the Big East nobody here would give a damn when mid-major schools were getting hosed in seeding/location/entry into the NCAA.

UCF didn’t have a top 4 resume. They take 4 teams. They can’t control who will play them and they can’t control that the AAC East was MAC like - but there hasn’t been a legitimate argument made yet for them to be in the Top 4.

It killed you to see UCF win.

Simply killed you.

Admit it.

 

[cohenzone]

I’ll put it gently. You don’t know what you are talking about.

I’ll put it equally gently. You think too much of the correctness of your own view of a computer system. Prove that in a given year a very good team from a weak conference isn’t the best team. You can’t. Only way to do it is on the field. You seem to want to ignore that I said the computers are generally okay. But not perfect. If they are, than a Boise State would never beat an Oklahoma

 

[whaler11]

I’ll put it equally gently. You think too much of the correctness of your own view of a computer system. Prove that in a given year a very good team from a weak conference isn’t the best team. You can’t. Only way to do it is on the field. You seem to want to ignore that I said the computers are generally okay. But not perfect. If they are, than a Boise State would never beat an Oklahoma

It’s not A computer system.

And no kidding - in any given 60 minutes the better team loses - that doesn’t invalidate the sum of computer models than a 10 point underdog winning a game invaldidates the gambling market.

You can’t prove who the best team is in 12 games and 2 playoff games - just like winning the World Series or the Super Bowl doesn’t prove who the best MLB or NFL team is.

 

[whaler11]

It killed you to see UCF win.

Simply killed you.

Admit it.

I am actually quite enjoying the ridiculous arguments for their ‘national championship’.

Mostly because the only reason anyone wants to make them is because of the conference affilition.

I think comparing Florida State football to UConn basketball is my favorite.

 

[cohenzone]

It’s not A computer system.

And no kidding - in any given 60 minutes the better team loses - that doesn’t invalidate the sum of computer models than a 10 point underdog winning a game invaldidates the gambling market.

You can’t prove who the best team is in 12 games and 2 playoff games - just like winning the World Series or the Super Bowl doesn’t prove who the best MLB or NFL team is.

The obvious answer is that the Field needs to be expanded. The models are only that. Should Ohio State have been denied? Dunno. Should UCF have been excluded because some model said their road was easier? The computer model won.

MLB has a long season and a long playoff season. Obviously the 6th best team in the NL in a given year might be better than the second best in the Al. No system is perfect The NFL makes some attempt at a fair schedule.

 

[whaler11]

The obvious answer is that the Field needs to be expanded. The models are only that. Should Ohio State have been denied? Dunno. Should UCF have been excluded because some model said their road was easier? The computer model won.

MLB has a long season and a long playoff season. Obviously the 6th best team in the NL in a given year might be better than the second best in the Al. No system is perfect The NFL makes some attempt at a fair schedule.

Huh? A committee picks the teams for the playoff not computers.

There isn’t a single sport in America that has a playoff system that is built to identify who the ‘best’ team is. The NBA’s pretty much does it but not on purpose.

 

[Fishy]

I am actually quite enjoying the ridiculous arguments for their ‘national championship’.

Mostly because the only reason anyone wants to make them is because of the conference affilition.

I think comparing Florida State football to UConn basketball is my favorite.

The reason you’re countering the argument is because of conference affiliation.

Time to stop hating the American. We’re never leaving it.

 

[whaler11]

The reason you’re countering the argument is because of conference affiliation.

Time to stop hating the American. We’re never leaving it.

I’m countering them because they are silly.

Subba pushed to ignore the eye test when UCF’s best argument IS the eye test.

Do people in hell ever wake up and decide to stop hating hell? I’m pretty sure you can’t get out of there either.

 

[Exit 4]

We’re never leaving it.

Better get comfortable... there is no way out. Whaler, you know that as well as anyone. Its time to learn to love your prison cell.

 

[Adios]

"The selection committee respected UCF," Hancock told ESPN on Tuesday. "After all, they're the group that put the Knights in the Peach Bowl. To qualify for the playoff, teams need to play tough schedules against good teams -- that is the way for all teams to stand out and be ranked high by the committee. UCF is an excellent team, but you still have to take into account who each team played and defeated during the regular season."

Translation: "We pick teams that played teams who our people had ranked high through the year."

UCF's win at UMD is in line with what a top 5 team would do on the road against a 4-8 UMD. Memphis is still underrated because of losing to Iowa State. UCF also won at Navy. Navy is solid. The cancelled game against GT hurt. GT lost at home to UGA, 38-7, and also won at home against Wake Forest, 38-24, who beat Texas A&M in their bowl game, Just had to play the good ole transitive game. Our conference is being underrated. He is right about giving them some "respect" by putting them against Auburn.

No, we're not staying in the AAC. Emos. Big 12's decision to not expand at the time looks smart now. Now they can add UConn, USF, UCF and Cincinnati.

 

[Palatine]

Everyone knows if you switched the names on UCF and Alabama, then the teams would be reverse position.

It's flat out bias based on history, affiliation and --most importantly- whose palms gets greased. The P5 ain't giving no outsider one cent more of their cash then they have to.

 

[DoctorWho85]

My take is no they don't hold any water in calling themselves a NC. But they have every right to argue they should have been included at the table

 

[HuskyHawk]

No they don’t.

I guess if you invent how things work then you can point out the flaws in their made up design.

It suffers from human bias. The people on the committee underrate Navy, USF, Memphis, Houston, SMU, Tulsa, etc. I guarantee you they mentally downgrade those programs compared to comparable teams in the P5 conferences. The resulting effect is that they see USFs strength of schedule as weaker than it is. By the way, the pollsters did this to the Big East too, even as an AQ conference.

College Football Playoff

I don’t like being in this conference either, but I think it was likely stronger than the Pac12 this year.

 

[Redding Husky]

UCF isn't better than any of the four teams in the playoff, but they're top 8, it'd be nice if they'd expand.

The Giants weren't better than the Patriots in two Super Bowls, but they won both games.

UCF should have been given a chance.

 

[Adios]

UCF Knights football - Wikipedia

UCF is marking this down as an unclaimed title. Their twitter account is also claiming a national championship.

 

[Hoophound]

They are going all in with the national title. It wouldn’t surprise me if this is at the AAC’s urging. Aresco needs to play nice with ESPN but UCF does not. UCF should rock the boat like crazy. It won’t hurt anybody but it will keep the conference in the media and create discussion.

 

[SubbaBub]

Good grief. This seriously is impressively stupid.

1. Francois is much much much much much much much much much better than Gilbert. They had a true freshman behind him - did you notice anything about the shape of their season?

2. The difference between winning and losing in football is who your quarterback is. Google Jimmy Garrapolo maybe you’ll learn something. Penalizing Alabama for causing FSU’s bad record is so painfully backwards it can’t even be comprehended. Sorry Alabama - your win against FSU doesn’t count because your defense was so good as to ruin their season but taking out their key player.

3. Alabama’s schedule is rated higher in every computer ranking of strength of schedule. The composite computer rankings believe that USF and Memphis are much less impressive than you do. Didn’t you want to talk about ‘facts’? What’s more of a fact? That the composite rankings all point in one direction while you point in the opposite?

You want to talk up a schedule that included?
UConn, East Carolina, Temple, Cincinnati, FIU and Austin Peay? They skipped out on Georgia Tech. That’s 7 games without playing ANYONE (playing those 6 teams is only marginally closer to football than skipping Georgia Tech). Those 6 teams could combine and not finish in the top 15. Those teams stunk like low tide in Bangkok.

This is a serious argument? How many times can you get credit for beating Memphis?

Here is the sum total of what Memphis did this year: Beat Navy at home and beat UCLA. Wow - maybe they should beat them a third time and we could put UCF in an AFC wildcard game.

You are using biases and overvaluing the middle and bottom portions of the schedules. A top national contending team doesn't lose to the back end of the schedule so in my mind it doesn't matter if one team beats Temple and another Ole Miss or whatever conference chaff you wish to use.

The SOS used by the committee does the same thing. In CFB, it there is a huge gap between the top teams and everyone else. You assume Bama has a better resume because they are Bama and in the SEC. Splitting hairs to validate the preaseaon bias.

This is not about Bama being a good team or better than UCF in Vegas. It is about resume and accomplishments of which Bama had very few at the end of the regular season.

UCF showed that they can hang 40 on anyone. Bama can't say that.

We have reverted back to the pre BCS days where a bunch of people with regional and historic biases are offering opinions to choose a mythical national champion.

The B1G just went 7-1 in bowl games how did their SOS compare? My guess is not as favorably to the SEC.

So this semifinal is supposed to have credibility when it leaves out the champion of the best conference and the only major conferece program that went 13-0 with several top 25 wins?

But. SEC, SEC.

 

[whaler11]

You are using biases and overvaluing the middle and bottom portions of the schedules. A top national contending team doesn't lose to the back end of the schedule so in my mind it doesn't matter if one team beats Temple and another Ole Miss or whatever conference chaff you wish to use.

The SOS used by the committee does the same thing. In CFB, it there is a huge gap between the top teams and everyone else. You assume Bama has a better resume because they are Bama and in the SEC. Splitting hairs to validate the preaseaon bias.

This is not about Bama being a good team or better than UCF in Vegas. It is about resume and accomplishments of which Bama had very few at the end of the regular season.

UCF showed that they can hang 40 on anyone. Bama can't say that.

We have reverted back to the pre BCS days where a bunch of people with regional and historic biases are offering opinions to choose a mythical national champion.

The B1G just went 7-1 in bowl games how did their SOS compare? My guess is not as favorably to the SEC.

So this semifinal is supposed to have credibility when it leaves out the champion of the best conference and the only major conferece program that went 13-0 with several top 25 wins?

But. SEC, SEC.

You keep talking about conferences and I’m talking about teams.

You are making up bizarre criteria that has nothing to with anything (can hang 40 on anyone - um ok).

You’ve now decided that the Big 10 is the best conference? And you are lamenting Ohio State not being included in the same post where you say these teams shouldn’t lose to the back end of their schedule?

Maybe you think that beating East Carolina is the same as beating Ole Miss because you are supposed to beat them - maybe you should note that no one agrees with you. The AAC East was a walkover - even if Florida is bad for Florida going to the Swamp is a bit different than going to Temple.

Maybe think about a consistent framework and perhaps don’t try and claim that UCF’s schedule was better than Alabama’s without better evidence than EVERYONE ELSE IS BIASED BUT NOT ME!!

 

[BlueMAB]

UCF showed that they can hang 40 on anyone. Bama can't say that.

So? UCF showed that anyone can drop 30 on them, can't say that about Bama.

Bama has the best defense in the country giving up 11 PPG, and the 12th best offense, scoring 38.
UCF has the 52nd best defense, giving up 25 PPG, and the best offense, scoring 48

In what universe does Bama allow Austin Peay to drop 33 on them like UCF did? Yeah, they won by 40, but Clemson was averaging 33 points per game and only managed 6. Bama beat Mercer 56-0, Ole Miss 66-3, and Vanderbilt 59-0. Is a 73-33 win vs. Austin Peay more impressive than any of those three? No, it's not. And looking at the top end of the schedule, Bama's was tougher by playing LSU, Miss St, and Auburn in 3/4 weeks.

UCF's toughest stretch was what exactly?

Bottom line, there didn't have to be any SEC teams in the championship game. But Clemson and Oklahoma lost, so here we are.

 

[freescooter]

This makes no realistic sense

1. Did Western Michigan belong in the playoff last year?

2. This would just encourage teams to schedule cupcakes.

Oh you mean like Mercer or The Citadel or Florida A&M or Delaware State? Playoff #1 seed Clemson played Kent State and the Citadel. Both Alabama and Auburn had the mighty Mercer Bears on the schedule. So please don’t talk about scheduling cupcakes. It isn’t like Alabama scheduled Ohio State, Oklahoma, Wisconsin and Notre Dame all on the road. Their non conference schedule was Fresno Colorado State, Mercer and a Florida State team that finished 6-6 with an asterisk. Which by the way shows how SOS is unpredictable Year to year.

 

[SubbaBub]

Precisely this ^^^^.

The empirical evidence is CFB isn't complete enough to separate elite teams without resorting to biases.

The only data points that aren't are wins and conference championships.

Wins can be suspect because schedules can affect win totals (it affected Ohio State's). But in terms of this year their is no significant difference between Bama schedule and UCF's. It doesn't matter what the rankings say because their schedules are close enough at the top end.

Bama was picked because they were a better known commodity, that is the only reason.

 

[BlueMAB]

Oh you mean like Mercer or The Citadel or Florida A&M or Delaware State? Playoff #1 seed Clemson played Kent State and the Citadel. Both Alabama and Auburn had the mighty Mercer Bears on the schedule. So please don’t talk about scheduling cupcakes. It isn’t like Alabama scheduled Ohio State, Oklahoma, Wisconsin and Notre Dame all on the road. Their non conference schedule was Fresno Colorado State, Mercer and a Florida State team that finished 6-6 with an asterisk. Which by the way shows how SOS is unpredictable Year to year.

Mercer is the only cupcake on that schedule.

Fresno won 10 games despite losing to both Bama and Washington.

CSU won 7.

Mercer still won 5 games despite playing both Auburn and Alabama.

You completely missed his point.