Does UCF have a right to claim the National Championship?

[whaler11]

Yeah all wins are the same.

Western Michigan should have been in the playoff last year then.

Point me towards your posts saying that.

If you are going to penalize Alabama for Florida State’s record you really should think about what you are even trying to argue. It is like comparing a team losing to San Francisco in week 6 or losing to them in week 14 and saying - durrr SF was 6-10 so those losses are the same. When in reality one team lost to a 2-14 team and one lost to an 11-5 team.

 

[UConnDan97]

Everyone on this thread continues to miss the point.

Is an SEC schedule tougher to navigate than an AAC schedule top to bottom? I would say so, and the vast majority of folks would say so.

But what if I told you that this point is irrelevant? And it truly is irrelevant. The only relevant point is this: every other sport chooses their champion on the field of play. Not by voting. Not by "style points" or public opinion. On the actual field of play. Even football at the FCS, DII, and DIII levels decides it on the field of play. Only FBS stands out as a "cool kids" club where you have to have the correct perception and style points and "eye tests".

It's nonsense. An undefeated team not being allowed to play for a championship??? Utter nonsense. Feel free to continue the argument about who has a tougher schedule, but that discussion will undoubtedly take you away from what should be the real outrage of this situation, which is that nobody has beaten UCF on the field of play and therefore nobody can tell them that they are not the champs...

 

[whaler11]

Everyone on this thread continues to miss the point.

Is an SEC schedule tougher to navigate than an AAC schedule top to bottom? I would say so, and the vast majority of folks would say so.

But what if I told you that this point is irrelevant? And it truly is irrelevant. The only relevant point is this: every other sport chooses their champion on the field of play. Not by voting. Not by "style points" or public opinion. On the actual field of play. Even football at the FCS, DII, and DIII levels decides it on the field of play. Only FBS stands out as a "cool kids" club where you have to have the correct perception and style points and "eye tests".

It's nonsense. An undefeated team not being allowed to play for a championship??? Utter nonsense. Feel free to continue the argument about who has a tougher schedule, but that discussion will undoubtedly take you away from what should be the real outrage of this situation, which is that nobody has beaten UCF on the field of play and therefore nobody can tell them that they are not the champs...

Complaints about the structure are completely valid.

I think you are caught up in ‘undefeated’. Western Michigan had no claim to any championship even if they won their bowl game.

Outrage is a pretty strong word - and while UCF may claim no one can tell then they aren’t the National Championship - they most certainly can and will be told that correctly because they aren’t.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

OMG they are hanging a national championship banner in the stadium.

 

[J187Money]

OMG they are hanging a national championship banner in the stadium.

UCF to raise national championship banner

I love this.

 

[Palatine]

UCF to raise national championship banner

I love this.

They are poking the committee in the eye test.

 

[SubbaBub]

Complaints about the structure are completely valid.

I think you are caught up in ‘undefeated’. Western Michigan had no claim to any championship even if they won their bowl game.

Outrage is a pretty strong word - and while UCF may claim no one can tell then they aren’t the National Championship - they most certainly can and will be told that correctly because they aren’t.

WMU's schedule and UCF's schedule are not comparable and you know it.

UCF played a representative schedule and beat several top 25 caliber teams. They are not in the same space as the MAC.

 

[UConnDan97]

Complaints about the structure are completely valid.

I think you are caught up in ‘undefeated’. Western Michigan had no claim to any championship even if they won their bowl game.

Outrage is a pretty strong word - and while UCF may claim no one can tell then they aren’t the National Championship - they most certainly can and will be told that correctly because they aren’t.

Everyone should be caught up in "undefeated". It means that nobody has beaten that team. That's absolutely the point that people should get caught up in.

What the committee is essentially saying is that there is an FBS and an FBS-lite (or FCS-plus). While most folks understand that to be true, I'm tired of the charade...

 

[UConnDan97]

WMU's schedule and UCF's schedule are not comparable and you know it.

UCF played a representative schedule and beat several top 25 caliber teams. They are not in the same space as the MAC.

What you are doing is exactly what the SEC is doing to UCF. Forget about the schedule comparisons between the MAC and UCF, because it is an irrelevant value judgment. The bottom line is that nobody has yet to demonstrate that they can beat UCF on the field, and that's all that matters...

 

[BlueMAB]

WMU's schedule and UCF's schedule are not comparable and you know it.

UCF played a representative schedule and beat several top 25 caliber teams. They are not in the same space as the MAC.

Oh the irony.

UCF's schedule was representative of what? What Bama and Georgia played?

How?

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

Oh the irony.

UCF's schedule was representative of what? What Bama and Georgia played?

How?

You are wasting your time with this.

 

[whaler11]

WMU's schedule and UCF's schedule are not comparable and you know it.

UCF played a representative schedule and beat several top 25 caliber teams. They are not in the same space as the MAC.

I know they aren’t. But I’m not making the argument that undefeated trumps all other criteria.

 

[BlueMAB]

You are wasting your time with this.

You're not wrong, but we're all "wasting our time" here.

 

[whaler11]

Everyone should be caught up in "undefeated". It means that nobody has beaten that team. That's absolutely the point that people should get caught up in.

What the committee is essentially saying is that there is an FBS and an FBS-lite (or FCS-plus). While most folks understand that to be true, I'm tired of the charade...

Eh Houston would have been in the playoff if they took care of business.

It’s not fair - but literally nothing about college sports is fair.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

I know they aren’t. But I’m not making the argument that undefeated trumps all other criteria.

Subba: “WMU should not have made the playoffs as an unbeaten team because they played a weak schedule.”

Subba: “Forget UCF’s strength of schedule. They were unbeaten. That’s all that matters.”

 

[brasssbonanzaa]

If this wacky national championship banner thing brings more attention to the need for an inclusive 8-team playoff and pushes the ball closer to that happening, I'm 100% for it.

 

[Drew]

If this wacky national championship banner thing brings more attention to the need for an inclusive 8-team playoff and pushes the ball closer to that happening, I'm 100% for it.

this. I think it has more to do with trying to make this happen than the actual title

 

[UConnDan97]

Eh Houston would have been in the playoff if they took care of business.

It’s not fair - but literally nothing about college sports is fair.

Yes, Houston would have had a shot if we didn't steal one from them. But that's more because they entered the AP weekly polls as early as week 6 that year. Still, they only got as high as #13 in the polls with a 10-0 record before we beat them. Their chances would have been extremely long odds even with all their momentum...

 

[Drew]

Yes, Houston would have had a shot if we didn't steal one from them. But that's more because they entered the AP weekly polls as early as week 6 that year. Still, they only got as high as #13 in the polls with a 10-0 record before we beat them. Their chances would have been extremely long odds even with all their momentum...

he means the year they beat Oklahoma and Louisville handily but lost to SMU and Navy. Not the first year where we beat them at the Rent.

 

[UConnDan97]

Subba: “WMU should not have made the playoffs as an unbeaten team because they played a weak schedule.”

Subba: “Forget UCF’s strength of schedule. They were unbeaten. That’s all that matters.”

To be fair, the first statement is probably Subba and the second statement is probably me.

I think if you were to ask Subba, he would try to tell you that the schedules between UCF and Alabama were the same. I'm not going to do that because I don't believe that to be true...

 

[UConnDan97]

he means the year they beat Oklahoma and Louisville handily but lost to SMU and Navy. Not the first year where we beat them at the Rent.

Okay, right.

That's the other issue I want to blabber on about. In order for the "lesser" schools to have a chance, they have to do it 2 years in a row. Which is preposterous. The reason Houston had a chance in 2016 when they were as high as 6th in the rankings was because they had finished 10-1 in 2015. In what rational world do you reward a sports team for what they did in a previous year???

But that's what has to happen for us bottom feeders in this ridiculous system. Essentially, UCF has given themselves a chance to be CONSIDERED for the playoffs next season. Uggh...

 

[huskymedic]

Noticeable which conference he left out...

 

[J187Money]

Eh Houston would have been in the playoff if they took care of business.

It’s not fair - but literally nothing about college sports is fair.

Right - but part of that is building up a reputation. Houston finished at #8 in 2015 after their bowl win against FSU (probably would have been higher if they hadn't lost to Diaco's mighty Huskies!).

So they started out ranked in 2016, and after beating Louisville moved up to #6 - had they won out they absolutely would have been in the playoff. But they lost to Navy/SMU/Memphis and ended up off of the grid.

Not sure how many seniors UCF loses - but IF Frost came back with enough players they might have started with a #10 ranking and if they run the table next year they might get in. But let's not forget they were 0-12 two years ago. Depending on who is back and what people feel about the coaching staff - they may start out with a top 15 ranking and from there if they win out they will be in or damn close.

 

[Husky25]

Not sure how many seniors UCF loses - but IF Frost came back with enough players they might have started with a #10 ranking and if they run the table next year they might get in. But let's not forget they were 0-12 two years ago. Depending on who is back and what people feel about the coaching staff - they may start out with a top 15 ranking and from there if they win out they will be in or damn close.

You don't find something wrong with this line of thinking?

In essence, A P-5 team could go 10-2 and have legitimate shot at the CFP at the end of the year. A non-P5 team needs to go undefeated or 13-1 for the privilege of being ranked high enough the following year in an attempt to perform the same or better (in all probability, considering the target on their back) with a different team and possibly different coaching staff for the honor of having an outside shot at the CFP the following year...A CFP that most would then consider tainted from the outset.

C'est la vie, as @whaler11 said, College sports is not fair. On the other hand, it is the other reason I personally have watched less than a handful of non-UConn football game this season.

 

[EdgewoodNHV]

I think it's brilliant. ESPN had already totally ignored UCF and their accomplishments and turned their channel into an SEC circlejerk. UCF got themselves right back in the conversation.

I'm starting to feel that in the AAC's case, the only bad publicity is no publicity.