Accepting apologies from people who said UCF doesn't deserve to be in the playoff

[4skers89]

12 minutes ago, teachercd said:

"Deserves got nothing to do with it"

 

What movie???

"I thought I was dead but I was just in Nebraska."  Obviously thought he had gone to heaven.

[QMany]

As others have said, it is all UCF's fault because of their conference and schedule. /s You see, you can't belong to a non-P5, go undefeated, win your division, and win your conference (UCF). But, you also can't lose just once only in the conference championship in arguably the toughest conference (Wisconsin). But lastly, you can't schedule non-con powerhouses, lose twice, but win your division and arguably the toughest conference (tOSU). You need to find that sweet spot, where your conference is so hyped by fallacies of elite defenses that you can lose your division to a 4-loss team that lost to said first team and somehow still get in. (If you do, you will be granted a de facto home game where you regularly play only 4 hours from campus). It is a very tough balancing act, and unless you join the ESecPN, you will never enjoy the fruits of your success. Sorry, it is all your fault.

[Enhance]

The question everybody should ask themselves is if they believe the two best teams in the country are playing for a championship.

 

My answer is yes.

[Redux]

8 minutes ago, Enhance said:

The question everybody should ask themselves is if they believe the two best teams in the country are playing for a championship.

 

My answer is yes.

 

Nope

[BigRedBuster]

16 hours ago, hskrpwr13 said:

no conference should have 2 teams in the playoff. 

 

This should have been apparent from the very beginning of the playoff system.

8 minutes ago, Enhance said:

The question everybody should ask themselves is if they believe the two best teams in the country are playing for a championship.

 

My answer is yes.

No.

[Enhance]

8 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

No.

 

8 minutes ago, Redux said:

Nope

The system is imperfect, but who can you objectively say is 'better' than either Georgia or Alabama?

[QMany]

1 minute ago, Enhance said:

 

The system is imperfect, but who can you objectively say is 'better' than either Georgia or Alabama? Who would be favored to beat either of those two teams on a neutral site?

 

Define "neutral site." Because it sure as sh*t isn't playing Alabama 4 hours from Tuscaloosa or Georgia one hour from Athens...

[Enhance]

2 minutes ago, QMany said:

 

Define "neutral site." Because it sure as sh*t isn't playing Alabama 4 hours from Tuscaloosa or Georgia one hour from Athens...

I removed that portion of my post as I didn't want to touch on it quite yet.

 

My main point is yes, the system is imperfect. And I believe there are certain teams who should've had a shot at a title. However, looking at the end result, I'm having a tough time arguing that there are two better teams who should be in that game.

[BigRedBuster]

8 minutes ago, Enhance said:

 

The system is imperfect, but who can you objectively say is 'better' than either Georgia or Alabama?

Ohio State should have been given a chance instead of putting two teams in from the same conference.  No system is perfect. But, that's pretty pathetic and shows a HUGE bias towards one conference by the committee.  

[Enhance]

19 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Ohio State should have been given a chance instead of putting two teams in from the same conference.  No system is perfect. But, that's pretty pathetic and shows a HUGE bias towards one conference by the committee.  

I agree with you. Maybe I'm just getting caught up in some minutaie - I believe there are a few teams whom should've had some sort of shot, but, I simultaneously believe the two best teams in the country are going to play January 8.

 

Of course, being 'the best' doesn't always mean you will win it all in a playoff system, which is why we play the games and why it's paramount we have a fair system.

[BigRedBuster]

28 minutes ago, Enhance said:

I agree with you. Maybe I'm just getting caught up in some minutaie - I believe there are a few teams whom should've had some sort of shot, but, I simultaneously believe the two best teams in the country are going to play January 8.

 

Of course, being 'the best' doesn't always mean you will win it all in a playoff system, which is why we play the games and why it's paramount we have a fair system.

 

I personally believe that if there is a tough decision between two programs, you should always error on the side of a)  no two teams from same conference....and .....b)  if you didn't even play for your conference championship, you shouldn't probably be in the national championship discussion.

[hskrpwr13]

2 hours ago, Enhance said:

The question everybody should ask themselves is if they believe the two best teams in the country are playing for a championship.

 

My answer is yes.

 

The answer can still be yes, and at the same time, the end not justify the means.

2 hours ago, Enhance said:

The question everybody should ask themselves is if they believe the two best teams in the country are playing for a championship.

 

My answer is yes.

 

The answer can still be yes, and at the same time, the end not justify the means.

[Redux]

Ohio State should have been in, and in hindsight, UCF should have been too.

 

Alabama should not be in it, and the will again probably win it because they are Alabama.

[hskrpwr13]

2 minutes ago, Redux said:

Ohio State should have been in, and in hindsight, UCF should have been too.

 

Alabama should not be in it, and the will again probably win it because they are Alabama.

 

Agree that by truly objective metrics, Bama should not have been in. I also wonder if they'd played Clemson during conference championship week, if the results would've been different. However, given the time off to heal and game plan, Bama is probably the toughest to beat.

[JKinney]

2 hours ago, Enhance said:

I removed that portion of my post as I didn't want to touch on it quite yet.

 

My main point is yes, the system is imperfect. And I believe there are certain teams who should've had a shot at a title. However, looking at the end result, I'm having a tough time arguing that there are two better teams who should be in that game.

 

The college football 4-team playoff is obviously beyond imperfect, but I believe that the only teams qualified to go to the CFP are CONFERENCE CHAMPIONSHIP WINNERS.  I would want 8 teams ideally...5 Power-5 conference championship winners, 3 non-power five conference championship winners.  It would get rid of some of the SUBJECTIVE measures and propaganda, such as which team is "the best". 

 

There are some who would then say (in a hypothetical situation that could have happened this year), "But a 12-1 Alabama team (that didn't play in a conference championship) is clearly 'better' than Auburn 10-3 (let's pretend for a second that Auburn won the conference championship this year)."  To this I would reply:  In the NCAA basketball tournament last year Arizona No. 2 seed was clearly "better" than Xavier No. 11 seed, so even though Xavier beat Arizona in the tournament, since Arizona was the "better" team they should be the one to advance?  The idea that a team should advance to the playoff because someone thinks they are "better" is crazy.  I think teams would/should be forced to treat their in conference schedule as their toughest test.  Teams know what they have to do to win their conference, the rules are clear and easy to follow.  If you don't win your conference too bad.

 

As for this year, Alabama didn't win their conference championship, in fact they didn't even play in the conference championship game.  For all those that are ready to label Alabama one of the two "best" teams in the nation, it is 100% pure subjective opinion.  If they are one of the two "best" teams in the nation, why didn't they at least play in their conference championship game?  UCF did, Ohio State did, USC did, Clemson did, Georgia did.

Edited January 2, 2018 by JKinney
clarification