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

[BigRedBuster]

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.

It really is a pretty simple concept that just about every other sports authority has been able to figure out.

Again...if you didn't even play for your conference championship...let alone actually win it.....you don't deserve to be playing for the NC.

 

[Enhance]

In a hypothetical 8-team CFP, I'm still hesitant to award Power 5 conference champions with an automatic berth. Nine times out of 10 this will be a good idea, but, remember 2012 Wisconsin? They won the conference with eight wins because tOSU was ineligible to participate. In this same 8-team scenario, Wisconsin would've gotten in over about 10 or so double-digit winning teams that season.

That's one of the (few) reasons I like the current 4-team format. Simply winning the conference matters but it's not an end-all be-all for making it in.

Edit - I should point out that I think an expanded playoff (i.e. eight teams) with automatic bids, that allow for three 'wildcard' positions, is probably ideal

 

[Enhance]

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.

A significant part of the CFP committee is subjectivity and it will always be that way. That's also why Alabama made it in in the first place.

However, I'm still cautious of putting so much weight on a conference championship. We don't demand teams win their division in the NFL (hence the wild card). That said, I would ultimately be OK with allowing this so long as it was expanded to at least six teams and allowed for non-conference champions to participate.

 

[QMany]

Interestingly enough, Sagarin strength-of-schedule rankings has Alabama 47th and Wisconsin 46th, both 4-1 versus Top-30.

 

[JKinney]

In a hypothetical 8-team CFP, I'm still hesitant to award Power 5 conference champions with an automatic berth. Nine times out of 10 this will be a good idea, but, remember 2012 Wisconsin? They won the conference with eight wins because tOSU was ineligible to participate. In this same 8-team scenario, Wisconsin would've gotten in over about 10 or so double-digit winning teams that season.

That's one of the (few) reasons I like the current 4-team format. Simply winning the conference matters but it's not an end-all be-all for making it in.

Well I absolutely respect your opinion, but I think we will just have to agree to disagree.  I'll make one last comment in the hopes of clarifying my point.  Otherwise no hard feelings.

I don't have a problem with an 8 win Wisconsin in an 8 team playoff, and here's why.  Wisconsin followed every OBJECTIVE metric (which they knew before the season began), in order to advance to the 8 team CFP.  These metrics were known before the season began (including the OSU ineligibility), and were fair to everyone in the conference and nation.  Let's say for a second that you don't let Wisconsin into the CFP that year, and instead you decide to fill their spot with a team that didn't win a championship.  That team that you pick would be chosen on purely subjective terms.  I.E. a committee's vote, ESPN narratives, who's going to be best for TV ratings, what games the coaches and persons voting actually watched.  Choosing conference champions would be the best way of getting rid of the subjectivity.  Not completely, but significantly.

You might like to think that Wisconsin would get crushed in an 8-team CFP playoff that year.  But let me remind you, these same brilliant analysts and committee members also all predicted an Miami route of Wisconsin this year, and UCF was a 9 point underdog to Auburn.

P.S.  I feel like I have to take a shower now after defending Wisconsin....

 

[Enhance]

Well I absolutely respect your opinion, but I think we will just have to agree to disagree.  I'll make one last comment in the hopes of clarifying my point.  Otherwise no hard feelings.

I don't have a problem with an 8 win Wisconsin in an 8 team playoff, and here's why.  Wisconsin followed every OBJECTIVE metric (which they knew before the season began), in order to advance to the 8 team CFP.  These metrics were known before the season began (including the OSU ineligibility), and were fair to everyone in the conference and nation.  Let's say for a second that you don't let Wisconsin into the CFP that year, and instead you decide to fill their spot with a team that didn't win a championship.  That team that you pick would be chosen on purely subjective terms.  I.E. a committee's vote, ESPN narratives, who's going to be best for TV ratings, what games the coaches and persons voting actually watched.  Choosing conference champions would be the best way of getting rid of the subjectivity.  Not completely, but significantly.

You might like to think that Wisconsin would get crushed in an 8-team CFP playoff that year.  But let me remind you, these same brilliant analysts and committee members also all predicted an Miami route of Wisconsin this year, and UCF was a 9 point underdog to Auburn.

P.S.  I feel like I have to take a shower now after defending Wisconsin....

I think that's a fair point. (I did add a qualifier to my above post by the way but I think you were typing a response and probably didn't see it  ).

Ultimately, I would be OK with an eight-team CFP that includes automatic bids and three wildcard spots. It has issues but every system will. This would (mostly) guarantee the best teams in the Power 5 make it in. The three wildcard spots could then be left open to some debate and subjectivity, and would likely allow for a team like a UCF to make it in. It would also give good teams like tOSU a chance to play for a title.

Personally, I'm still happier about what transpired this year rather than what would've happened had the BCS system been in place. Clemson and Oklahoma likely would've played for the title and we now know the two teams ranked underneath them could have (and did) beat them on the biggest stage. I think (and hope) it's time to start having serious conversations about making the system better.

P.S. - You should feel ashamed for defending them

 

[JKinney]

I think that's a fair point. (I did add a qualifier to my above post by the way but I think you were typing a response and probably didn't see it  ).

Ultimately, I would be OK with an eight-team CFP that includes automatic bids and three wildcard spots. It has issues but every system will. This would (mostly) guarantee the best teams in the Power 5 make it in. The three wildcard spots could then be left open to some debate and subjectivity, and would likely allow for a team like a UCF to make it in. It would also give good teams like tOSU a chance to play for a title.

Personally, I'm still happier about what transpired this year rather than what would've happened had the BCS system been in place. Clemson and Oklahoma likely would've played for the title and we now know the two teams ranked underneath them could have (and did) beat them on the biggest stage. I think (and hope) it's time to start having serious conversation about making the system better.

I can't give +1's (technical difficulties) so........ :thumbs

 

[Stumpy1]

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.

This right here is 1000% spot on. 

 

[hskrpwr13]

Interestingly enough, Sagarin strength-of-schedule rankings has Alabama 47th and Wisconsin 46th, both 4-1 versus Top-30.

This is where my complaint comes in. As someone who's not a fan of expanding the playoff, I think the measurables being used, to create the metric, are flawed. I have a really hard time believing that Wisconsin's 13-game FBS schedule was so bad (compared to Bama's 11-game FBS schedule and in lieu of the bowl results) that the two teams wound up essentially "even".  And even if you do believe the metric, that certainly doesn't prove that Bama was "unequivocally" better than the other non-top 3 teams, as the playoff committee claimed. 

 

[Bornhusker]

I think UCF proved they can compete with just about anyone, however, this black and white viewpoint held by a lot of UCF fans about the CFP is disingenuous.

Schedule is a factor and UCF didn't play in a Power 5. The level of competition week in and week out just isn't the same. This is also a big reason (IMO) Frost and his staff aren't staying at UCF. They had the single greatest season they could've had and they never had a legitimate shot at the CFP. This will always be the case for a non-power 5.

I totally get UCF's argument, but there is some validity to why they were kept out of the CFP.

Exactly, but UCF fans will still cry, while ignoring the real reason why. Move to a p5 conference and see how things go..

 

[BigRedBuster]

In a hypothetical 8-team CFP, I'm still hesitant to award Power 5 conference champions with an automatic berth. Nine times out of 10 this will be a good idea, but, remember 2012 Wisconsin? They won the conference with eight wins because tOSU was ineligible to participate. In this same 8-team scenario, Wisconsin would've gotten in over about 10 or so double-digit winning teams that season.

That's one of the (few) reasons I like the current 4-team format. Simply winning the conference matters but it's not an end-all be-all for making it in.

Edit - I should point out that I think an expanded playoff (i.e. eight teams) with automatic bids, that allow for three 'wildcard' positions, is probably ideal

Will have to disagree.

To make the rest of college football put up with this type of system only because of a very fluke deal with Wisconsin winning the conference in 2012 as an example of why not to....well....that's just not logical.

The only reason Wisconsin won that year is because OSU was on probation and couldn't play for it.

That scenario is very rare.  And....even if it happened 1 out of 10 years like in your post, I'm fine with that. If those "double digit winning teams" want in the playoffs, win your conference.

 

[HuskerNBigD]

Exactly, but UCF fans will still cry, while ignoring the real reason why. Move to a p5 conference and see how things go..

UCF moving to a p5 isn't a super simple, snap of the fingers ordeal.

They tried to back in 2016 and the Big 12 said thanks, but no thanks. What were they supposed to do? I mean, seriously. This is one of the weakest arguments, along with the "well they should change their schedule or schedule the big boys." What happens when the big boys don't want to schedule them because there is no upside for P5 teams to play UCF? And last I checked, you just can't magically tell your conference foes you don't want to play them.

It's sort of like the old lady from the esurance commercial who says, "that's not how any of this works."

 

[Enhance]

Will have to disagree.

To make the rest of college football put up with this type of system only because of a very fluke deal with Wisconsin winning the conference in 2012 as an example of why not to....well....that's just not logical.

The only reason Wisconsin won that year is because OSU was on probation and couldn't play for it.

That scenario is very rare.  And....even if it happened 1 out of 10 years like in your post, I'm fine with that. If those "double digit winning teams" want in the playoffs, win your conference.

I did address this in following posts but I'm unsure if you saw. Ultimately, I accept the obscurity of it and realize there's no way to prevent every odd scenario. Something inevitably will find a way to screw an eight team playoff, too. Guarantee five spots to P5 and allow for three wild cards and that will be more fair than the current system in most years.

The one thing I don't want to see is a lack of wildcard spots or a six-team playoff with an obscure method of entry for that sixth seed (like a non-P5 who meets certain criteria, as suggested by one local writer today). One beauty of the current system is they're not hampered by guaranteeing every spot to a conference champion. Most professional sports (MLB, NFL, NBA) and many division one sports allow for wild cards and winning the conference/division is not the only method of entry.

 

[BigRedBuster]

The one thing I don't want to see is a lack of wildcard spots or a six-team playoff with an obscure method of entry for that sixth seed (like a non-P5 who meets certain criteria, as suggested by one local writer today). One beauty of the current system is they're not hampered by guaranteeing every spot to a conference champion. Most professional sports (MLB, NFL, NBA) and many division one sports allow for wild cards and winning the conference/division is not the only method of entry.

Yes, but, let's be clear about those other leagues.  Let's take MLB.  To be a wild card, there still is a clear cut way that is determined.  It is determined on the field of play and in no way is the third best team in a division all of a sudden put into the playoffs just because some random group of people in a conference room thinks they deserve it.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Hey, that's why they play the games.

I don't think anyone was wrong to wonder how UCF would hang with a Top 10 Power 5 team. An elite defense can bring you down to Earth pretty quick. The Vegas point spread wasn't disrespectful, it was oddsmakers doing their job. 

But UCF played four strong and non-flukey quarters against Auburn, a team that had just beaten Alabama and Georgia. They had an undefeated season and will be ranked in the 2017 Top 5 forever. They earned it. Frost and UCF are the feelgood story of college football. Georgia and Alabama....not so much.

Who knows what would have happened, but if UCF had leapfrogged Alabama, Wisconsin, and Ohio State for the final playoff spot, they may well have lost to a more motivated team in a higher stakes game, and it wouldn't have felt nearly as good as it does right now.