UCF - Your 2017 National Champions!!!!

[Capt. Tuttle]

They didn't answer every bell. Their game against Georgia Tech was cancelled. They looked good early in the year. The unique style could have given them trouble.

The bell never rang. Nothing to answer.

 

[Eric15]

The critics posting about SOS are full of ish. They know that there is no way P5 teams are going to schedule them. So even if UCF wanted to schedule OOC of Tenn, VaTech, ND, USC, none of those teams would entertain it...why?

You're perpetuating a myth. Teams like South Florida, Boise State, Houston and a number of other mid-majors have played many big-time FBS opponents over the past couple years, and have series scheduled in upcoming years.

Just to pick South Florida as one example, they played Florida State, Miami and Wisconsin in the past 2-3 years, and have an upcoming series with Texas. Houston beat Oklahoma in their opener last season.

 

[Doc5120]

Following the UCF model, here are 35 addtional "national champions." 35 teams who should follow UCF’s example and claim titles

This is just plain stupid. Let's hand out participation trophies too. UCF is a good team, a very good team, but they are by no means the national champion. I find this to be absolutely ridiculous.

 

[Eric15]

Following the UCF model, here are 35 addtional "national champions." 35 teams who should follow UCF’s example and claim titles

This is just plain stupid. Let's hand out participation trophies too. UCF is a good team, a very good team, but they are by no means the national champion. I find this to be absolutely ridiculous.

Tulane went 12-0 in 1998. They didn't beat a ranked team all year, but I guess they're the co-national champions from that year with Tennessee because "college football is corrupt yada yada yada."

 

[OrangePA]

In my opinion, the playoff committee has not made a single mistake picking the four best teams in the four years the playoff has existed.

Maybe, but the point is - as you have indicated - that the calculus is subjective.

It's supposed to be a play-off system but it really isn't.

Last year Ohio State was in the finals even though it lost to Penn State during the regular season. Penn State won the Big Ten Championship on the field and yet was not selected for the final play-off.

So, the system is subjective - it is not decided on the field.

My feeling is that since the system is subjective, the old system should be used - that way undefeated teams like UCF have a chance to win the NC and the players don't have to play 15 games - way too many for college kids.

 

[sufandu]

Maybe, but the point is - as you have indicated - that the calculus is subjective.

It's supposed to be a play-off system but it really isn't.

Last year Ohio State was in the finals even though it lost to Penn State during the regular season. Penn State won the Big Ten Championship on the field and yet was not selected for the final play-off.

So, the system is subjective - it is not decided on the field.

My feeling is that since the system is subjective, the old system should be used - that way undefeated teams like UCF have a chance to win the NC and the players don't have to play 15 games - way too many for college kids.

Would they have a better chance under the old system? The use of the polls made that system subjective too. Their final ranking would have left them in the same place they are now.

Any system trying to reconcile 125ish teams with varying SOS is going to have some subjectivity. A system that includes all conference champions and a small number of at larges is the fairest.

 

[Eric15]

My feeling is that since the system is subjective, the old system should be used - that way undefeated teams like UCF have a chance to win the NC and the players don't have to play 15 games - way too many for college kids.

Which old system are you referring to?

 

[OttoinGrotto]

If your policy was implemented, wouldn't every team strive to play the absolute weakest schedule humanly possible?

Who knows. But if they did, so what? They'd still have to prove it in the playoff.

 

[orangecuse]

In my opinion, the playoff committee has not made a single mistake picking the four best teams in the four years the playoff has existed.

Thought this was perfect relative to your post about your opinion.

 

[Eric15]

Who knows. But if they did, so what? They'd still have to prove it in the playoff.

I mean, it would degrade the overall entertainment product by stripping the sport of September non-conference showdowns in place of blowout games. Is College Gameday going to broadcast live from Ohio State vs. North Texas in Week 2?

 

[OrangePA]

Which old system are you referring to?

The UPI/AP Polls.

They usually got it right.

And they gave programs like Brigham Young a chance to be National Champions - something that will never happen again.

And that's a shame because the fun of college football should be the large number of programs that it should entail.

For example, I used to love the SI College Football edition because it included a piece on every program, including the smaller conferences and the independents.

Now, with the emphasis on the play-offs and the focus on the major programs, the SI College Football edition no longer covers every program but instead focuses attention on the same old usual suspects - the Ohio States, the Alabamas, the USCs.

And after awhile, that gets boring.

 

[OrangePA]

Would they have a better chance under the old system? The use of the polls made that system subjective too. Their final ranking would have left them in the same place they are now.

Any system trying to reconcile 125ish teams with varying SOS is going to have some subjectivity. A system that includes all conference champions and a small number of at larges is the fairest.

Of course the old system was subjective - clearly it was.

But under the old system, a team like Brigham Young could win the NC.

Under the old system, UCF could be named NC - and that would be a good thing - better than Alabama year after year.

That's my opinion at least.

 

[All4SU]

The reality is that it's all fake.

The BCS was fake and the present playoff system is fake.

It's based on opinion and is therefore necessarily subjective.

The system that is in place now serves once purpose - to make more money.

The old poll system was just as fair, made more bowl games relevant and gave many more schools the chance to be crowned NC.

And, the old system didn't beat up the young athletes with 13 to 15 game schedules.

I love college football and I love Syracuse University Football more than any other program, but the college system has gotten way out of hand - because of the money.

ALL4SU Names UCF National Champions.

There! Now they’ve been officially recognized by someone. Sorry SEC.

 

[Eric15]

The UPI/AP Polls.

They usually got it right.

And they gave programs like Brigham Young a chance to be National Champions - something that will never happen again.

And that's a shame because the fun of college football should be the large number of programs that it should entail.

For example, I used to love the SI College Football edition because it included a piece on every program, including the smaller conferences and the independents.

Now, with the emphasis on the play-offs and the focus on the major programs, the SI College Football edition no longer covers every program but instead focuses attention on the same old usual suspects - the Ohio States, the Alabamas, the USCs.

And after awhile, that gets boring.

You're literally the only person I've ever seen say the old poll system was better than the current 4 team playoff. I can't even get my head around the idea that a system which allowed co-national champions and often didn't have 1 vs. 2 playing in a bowl game is better than four teams deciding the championship on the field.

BYU opened the 1984 season beating #3 Pitt on the road, which allowed them to shoot up in the rankings. If a mid-major did that today, they would also shoot up in the rankings (e.g. Houston beating Oklahoma to open last season).

 

[orangecuse]

You're literally the only person I've ever seen say the old poll system was better than the current 4 team playoff. I can't even get my head around the idea that a system which allowed co-national champions and often didn't have 1 vs. 2 playing in a bowl game is better than four teams deciding the championship on the field.

BYU opened the 1984 season beating #3 Pitt on the road, which allowed them to shoot up in the rankings. If a mid-major did that today, they would also shoot up in the rankings (e.g. Houston beating Oklahoma to open last season).

Your arguments have holes, just like others whom have their opinions. Can you get "your head around" the fact that stands no matter what your persuasion attempts are, the fact that whether it's 1 vs. 2 or a 4 team playoff, etc, that the four 'chosen' teams are exactly that, chosen, and it's with absolute bias and subjective opinion. No way around that fact! On an aside, why even have 12 NFL teams in the playoffs? Just have an alleged 'expert' panel pick whom they think (again opinion) who the best 4 NFL teams are and have at it.

 

[Eric15]

Your arguments have holes, just like others whom have their opinions. Can you get "your head around" the fact that stands no matter what your persuasion attempts are, the fact that whether it's 1 vs. 2 or a 4 team playoff, etc, that the four 'chosen' teams are exactly that, chosen, and it's with absolute bias and subjective opinion. No way around that fact! On an aside, why even have 12 NFL teams in the playoffs? Just have an alleged 'expert' panel pick whom they think (again opinion) who the best 4 NFL teams are and have at it.

I'm not saying the 4 team playoff is in any way a perfect system, I'm simply saying it's a better system than pre-BCS. I don't think that's a controversial opinion.

The NFL has 32 teams and 16 games, and the point spread between the worst team in the league and the best team in the league is maybe 14 points tops. Therefore, subjectivity isn't necessary. Going by pure win-loss record is sufficient.

 

[Ish88888]

I was agreeing with Paul until he said "Auburn didn't want to be there". Absolutely hate that excuse. Ask any Auburn player and to a man they would say they wanted to be there. Disappointing that Paul stooped to the level of which most of his callers dwell.

Of course any UA player would say they wanted to be there but no way they prepared and played with any desperation for this meaningless game after the iron bowl and SEC champ. No way. The big boys have had trouble with these situations for years. The key to betting bowl games is first figuring out who is happy to be there and who is playing the game after having bigger goals.

I have said for years, the iron bowl should be played earlier in the schedule. Crazy to play that, then the SEC champ the next week.

 

[orangecuse]

I'm not saying the 4 team playoff is in any way a perfect system, I'm simply saying it's a better system than pre-BCS. I don't think that's a controversial opinion.

The NFL has 32 teams and 16 games, and the point spread between the worst team in the league and the best team in the league is maybe 14 points tops. Therefore, subjectivity isn't necessary. Going by pure win-loss record is sufficient.

I'm not implying that your viewpoint is controversial. But you saying it's a "better" system again is just your personal opinion, maybe it is. But, it's an opinion, which is no different than the panel of 'so-called experts' who chose the 4 teams that make the playoff, it's still subjective. Hence, the main point that I've been arguing all along (my opinion of course) that it's still a mythical/subjective national champion.

 

[sufandu]

Of course the old system was subjective - clearly it was.

But under the old system, a team like Brigham Young could win the NC.

Under the old system, UCF could be named NC - and that would be a good thing - better than Alabama year after year.

That's my opinion at least.

But in this day and age they wouldn't. What did the final AP poll look like? UCF was 10 before the bowl games. They weren't ever going to leapfrog 9 teams. Voters take SOS into account too.

 

[obliterata]

The playoff system is better than the BCS and previous ways of determining a champion but it still isn't fair to teams in lesser conferences, 8/12/16 teams would be better.

UCF is THE National Champion!

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I mean, it would degrade the overall entertainment product by stripping the sport of September non-conference showdowns in place of blowout games. Is College Gameday going to broadcast live from Ohio State vs. North Texas in Week 2?

I don't care about Gameday.

That's the wrong problem to solve.

I think you're really overrating the schedule fall off, anyway.

 

[Eric15]

I don't care about Gameday.

That's the wrong problem to solve.

I think you're really overrating the schedule fall off, anyway.

Your exact words were "take any undefeated team and put them in the playoff."

So if the playoff committee went with that, that would mean strong non-conference wins were no longer applicable. All that matters is that you go undefeated, regardless of opponent. Why wouldn't the natural result of this be teams watering down their schedules severely?

 

[OrangePA]

You're literally the only person I've ever seen say the old poll system was better than the current 4 team playoff. I can't even get my head around the idea that a system which allowed co-national champions and often didn't have 1 vs. 2 playing in a bowl game is better than four teams deciding the championship on the field.

BYU opened the 1984 season beating #3 Pitt on the road, which allowed them to shoot up in the rankings. If a mid-major did that today, they would also shoot up in the rankings (e.g. Houston beating Oklahoma to open last season).

I am just expressing my point of view. Whether I am only one who believes as I do I guess will be decided by the board. That's the point of the board, I guess.

Again, my concerns are: (1) there is too much money in the college game - the media in all its forms, has exerted full control over the game; (2) the athletes are being asked to play too many games; (3) there is still a lot of subjectivity in the process; (4) the play-off system spotlights the wealthy programs and detracts from the less wealthy programs; (5) the play-off system renders more and more post-season bowl games less meaningful; and (6) the play-off system effectively prevents a program like BYU or UCF from every becoming a NC.

I have the NFL. I have professional football.

I don't need another version of it and I don't want another Super Bowl - which is what the NC game is trying so hard to become.

If I'm the only one who feels as I do, that's fine.

 

[Eric15]

I am just expressing my point of view. Whether I am only one who believes as I do I guess will be decided by the board. That's the point of the board, I guess.

Again, my concerns are: (1) there is too much money in the college game - the media in all its forms, has exerted full control over the game; (2) the athletes are being asked to play too many games; (3) there is still a lot of subjectivity in the process; (4) the play-off system spotlights the wealthy programs and detracts from the less wealthy programs; (5) the play-off system renders more and more post-season bowl games less meaningful; and (6) the play-off system effectively prevents a program like BYU or UCF from every becoming a NC.

I have the NFL. I have professional football.

I don't need another version of it and I don't want another Super Bowl - which is what the NC game is trying so hard to become.

If I'm the only one who feels as I do, that's fine.

I respect your opinion, but I don't agree with a single thing you just said.

BYU winning the national title in 1984 was an extremely rare occurrence. The last time prior to that a non-major conference team won a title was Army in 1946. Again, the reason BYU won is because they went on the road in Week 1 and beat #3 Pitt. Teams today have every opportunity to schedule and win tough games.

If anything, the current four team playoff makes it easier (relatively speaking, compared to before) for a mid-major to compete for a title.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Your exact words were "take any undefeated team and put them in the playoff."

So if the playoff committee went with that, that would mean strong non-conference wins were no longer applicable. All that matters is that you go undefeated, regardless of opponent. Why wouldn't the natural result of this be teams watering down their schedules severely?

For multiple reasons - not every program would have the goal to get into the playoff, predicting how to water down a schedule isn't a perfect science, TV and fans would still exert pressure for good matchups to take place, not everybody can schedule Rutgers, etc.