UCF has been trying for YEARS to get into a power 5 conference, submitting bids, kissing [BLEEP], and they literally have gotten nowhere.  Yet you have schools like Vanderbilt and Rutgers cashing in year over year. 

I'd love to trade UCF for Vandy. Hell, I'd trade UCF for Texas A&M or Missouri.

---

UCF has been trying for YEARS to get into a power 5 conference, submitting bids, kissing [BLEEP], and they literally have gotten nowhere.  Yet you have schools like Vanderbilt and Rutgers cashing in year over year. 

I'd love to trade UCF for Vandy.   Hell, I'd trade UCF for Texas A&M or Missouri.

It creates amazing rivalries, problem is Florida would never EVER let it happen because it would hurt their recruiting.  The politics and back door garbage in all of this is insane.

---

 

The human mind can be made into quite a remarkable fountain of excuses.  Now you're going to say Auburn wasn't trying.  I don't know.  The fans leaving the stadium looked pretty upset to lose.  I didn't get close enough to the players to see.  But I have to think that the players and coaches strongly wanted to end their season with a win and preserve the reputation of the SEC.

The human mind generally responds more positively to incentives.  UCF had a clear incentive of remaining perfect and finishing with an unblemished record.  What was Auburn's incentive?  A shiny peach bowl trophy?  Or to be the name that pops up when people 5 years from now can't remember who won the 2018 Peach Bowl and decide to google it?  It doesn't mean they weren't trying in the moment, but people in general get up for and prepare for events or tasks more so when they are incentivized to do so.  At any rate, going in this direction doesn't really interest me enough to continue so that will be the last I'll say on the subject of it being a meaningless game.  I'm happy to continue discussing the merits of hypothetical playoff systems, however.

Did you watch the game?  I can assure you Malzahn and that team did not want to lose and played hard.  I never saw Malzahn walk up and down the sidelines so much when watching him.  I'm sure a lot of it was I don't want to lose to a non power 5 school, but he had reasons to want to win.

It's not a meaningless game when a team is 13-0 with the potential of changing the NCAA football playoff system going forward.

I always find it funny when the Auburn's of the world lose a bowl game to a lesser team the argument quickly switches to well they didn't have any incentive.  Well if that's the case the players don't deserve a scholarship and the coach's shouldn't get paid.

---

 

Even if I take this computation at face value, it says right there that it excludes the bowl games. What's the FPI of each team now, I wonder?
If one stat like this can change a lot week to week, is it a useful stat?

I left the bowl games out because we were discussing why UCF didn't get into the playoff which would not have included bowl game stats.

OK then, excluding the bowl game does make sense.
So the next thing I would ask is, how does the FPI account for the fact that a lot of these lower conference teams do not play each other?  Don't you have to start with the assumption that some teams or conferences are bad while some are good?  ESPN does not seem to explain this.  To me it does not seem mathematically possible to establish which team is best without either starting from unprovable postulates, or having the entire season play out as a playoff that produces a single undefeated team.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

What's FPI? Is it like QBR? Another ESPN made up stat?

LOL   I could provide more strength of schedule info but your mind is made up.    UCF played a tough schedule and no facts to the contrary will matter.     Go with that.

No sir. I'm not saying UCF had a daunting schedule but neither did Alabama.  They played their toughest game at the end of the year and lost it.

I asked what FPI was. I didn' have time when I posted that to look too deeply into it.

You won't convince me that UCF doesn' deserve the opportunity at a national championship this year though.

---

SEC blows. They get overrated by the committee every single year.

---

They should've been given a shot.

They were given a shot when they built their schedule. It's bad enough that almost all the football factories schedule three cupcakes a year (at home, of course). You don't want to encourage more of that.

And bowl game victories aren't indicative of anything.

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

They deserved a shot but they would have been dismantled by the 4 that got in.

An 8 team playoff is the best way forward.

---

They deserved a shot but they would have been dismantled by the 4 that got in.  

An 8 team playoff is the best way forward.

To get to eight games you better come up with an argument that the university presidents will buy. The money argument hasn't worked so far.

And be careful about the eight game thing. That will help dilute the importance of the late season games and will hurt television ratings. If you know both USC and Notre Dame, for example, are both getting in it takes away from the drama. And you know as well as I do that someone somewhere will be complaining that UCF or whomever should have been that eighth team.

I'm glad UCF didn't make it in the sense I want to see teams get in that may have lost a game or two but played a tougher schedule. Being undefeated can be overrated.

---

SEC blows. They get overrated by the committee every single year.

So what's your solution on how to select four teams?

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

They deserved a shot but they would have been dismantled by the 4 that got in.  

An 8 team playoff is the best way forward.

To get to eight games you better come up with an argument that the university presidents will buy. The money argument hasn't worked so far.

And be careful about the eight game thing. That will help dilute the importance of the late season games and will hurt television ratings. If you know both USC and Notre Dame, for example, are both getting in it takes away from the drama. And you know as well as I do that someone somewhere will be complaining that UCF or whomever should have been that eighth team.

I'm glad UCF didn't make it in the sense I want to see teams get in that may have lost a game or two but played a tougher schedule. Being undefeated can be overrated.

Keep it simple. The 5 conference champs get in, The best G5 gets in and then the two others are the highest ranked teams. No matter what way you do it some teams are going to be upset.  

Still keeps the importance of the games for both rankings and for the championships.

---

They deserved a shot but they would have been dismantled by the 4 that got in.  

An 8 team playoff is the best way forward.

To get to eight games you better come up with an argument that the university presidents will buy. The money argument hasn't worked so far.

And be careful about the eight game thing. That will help dilute the importance of the late season games and will hurt television ratings. If you know both USC and Notre Dame, for example, are both getting in it takes away from the drama. And you know as well as I do that someone somewhere will be complaining that UCF or whomever should have been that eighth team.

I'm glad UCF didn't make it in the sense I want to see teams get in that may have lost a game or two but played a tougher schedule. Being undefeated can be overrated.

---

Eight teams equals SEVEN games.

---

5 automatic bids for the power 5 champions, 1 automatic bid for the top non power 5 team, and then 2 wild cards is ideal to me.

---

They could structure it like the nfl.

Make 1&2 have the first round bye which will keep the drive/relevance through the end of the year up, Then have 3&4 play two wild card teams seeded by rank.

Essentially make what would be the confrence championship game in the nfl the National title game.

You don't dilute to an 8 team tourney but allow a little more room.

---

According to Golic and Wingo this morning UCF's strength of schedule was 84th in the country. The also said that even if you went back to the old BCS method of doing the rankings etc AND expanding the playoffs to 8 teams, UCF would have been....... Ninth.

---

According to Golic and Wingo this morning UCF's strength of schedule was 84th in the country.  The also said that even if you went back to the old BCS method of doing the rankings etc AND expanding the playoffs to 8 teams, UCF would have been....... Ninth.

Tbf, if you made a 64 team playoff, some people would put them 65th.

---

According to Golic and Wingo this morning UCF's strength of schedule was 84th in the country.  The also said that even if you went back to the old BCS method of doing the rankings etc AND expanding the playoffs to 8 teams, UCF would have been....... Ninth.

Golic and Wingo are changing the narrative to fit their argument.  UCF did not have the 84th sos in the country.  In fact I looked yesterday and I think it was 55th. 

We don't use the old BCS method so why are they even discussing it?  Nobody has talked about doing the playoffs that way.  They've talked about the 5 "power 5" champs and 3 at large with a mixture of including a non power 5 if parameters are met.

When the defining way the teams are picked is money, things need to change.  When a team like UCF is growing and they have been fighting for years to get into the "power 5" and keep getting stone walled, it only shows the good ole boys don't want to change the status quo.

---

 

SEC blows. They get overrated by the committee every single year.

As evidenced by having 2 SEC teams playing for the national championship, again.
FTR: I think in my heart of hearts, that UCF probably deserved a shot. BUT I also agree with the committee that the 4 best teams probably got in.

And anyone who says the SEC is over rated is just a salty fan of another conference with less talent top to bottom.
Yeah, the SEC was down this year... but our worst teams most years still compete with some of the best teams of other conferences, including the Pac-12 and especially the guys of the MAC/WAC/AAC etc.
The ol Alabama didn't play anyone is a weak argument. Their soft games against guys like Ms St, and Arkansas and UT, are all still tougher opponents than most schools have on their schedules. And even if these teams are "nobodies" they typically beat the brakes off em.
Georgia beat a ranked ND, MS St, and Auburn.

Yeah... SEC is so over rated lol

(It isn't like they let in an undeserving SEC team because they are SEC, so stop with that whiny outlook on the CFP)

---

According to Golic and Wingo this morning UCF's strength of schedule was 84th in the country.  The also said that even if you went back to the old BCS method of doing the rankings etc AND expanding the playoffs to 8 teams, UCF would have been....... Ninth.

Golic and Wingo are changing the narrative to fit their argument.  UCF did not have the 84th sos in the country.  In fact I looked yesterday and I think it was 55th. 

We don't use the old BCS method so why are they even discussing it?  Nobody has talked about doing the playoffs that way.  They've talked about the 5 "power 5" champs and 3 at large with a mixture of including a non power 5 if parameters are met.

When the defining way the teams are picked is money, things need to change.  When a team like UCF is growing and they have been fighting for years to get into the "power 5" and keep getting stone walled, it only shows the good ole boys don't want to change the status quo.

I agree with you.

The conference set up now is a joke on way to many levels. It allows so much room for debatable variables, that are not played out by the players or coaches, to determine ranking. Not to mention there is no real guideline as to how teams are judge like in the NFL. I understand that history of a school and long term success are important, but it generally is used too much in determining placing of teams ranks. Even if they stuck with the system they have but offer a set standard of how they judge teams, it would be better.

For now its- Lets base our results on strength of schedule(which can be debated), strength of conference(which can be debated), record(the only real thing the players and coaches control), and about 50 other financial and logistic factor that don't relate to football.

I also understand that it is very difficult to compare the amount of teams that are out there with the set amount of games that are played. But there are better methods than what is being used right now.

This is just an idea ive been tossing around on top of the example i threw out earlier, Basically a method with smaller conferences and less season play that would allow for more of a lengthy bracket tournament. This would allow more teams to be compared while keeping the length of the season close to what it is now. in other words something like the nfl with 4 team conferences and only an 8 game regular season composed of only conference play. followed by a 32ish(open for suggestion) team bracket tourney after the season. one could easily make 16-32 conferences out of the amount of teams that are out there now and allow of for either the top on or two team from each to go. A tangent idea onto something like this would be to have the latter teams that didn't make the tourney play in a similar tourney to determined relegation or even conference shifts. In other words possibly having confrences that are not set in stone but determined by the prior years results.

Just an idea and needs a lot of work but i was just brainstorming lol.

It may sound crazy but if you want to compare a lot of teams while considering the limited size of a schedule football players can actually accomplish, it would sort of cover both.

Unfortunately the conferences that are in place would have to be blown up(i also understand they connect to other sports) which makes this almost impossible.

---

I've yet to see anyone suggest a different/better method of selecting the four teams for a playoff.

The university presidents - the ones who have final say in all this - have made it clear, so far, that they only want four teams. So why should UCF be one of them? So all undefeated teams should be in the final four, regardless of schedule?

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

I've yet to see anyone suggest a different/better method of selecting the four teams for a playoff.

The university presidents - the ones who have final say in all this - have made it clear, so far, that they only want four teams. So why should UCF be one of them? So all undefeated teams should be in the final four, regardless of schedule?

With 5 power conferences, there is no better method for selecting ONLY four teams.
Every year number 5 is gonna be mad.
And if you switch to 6, number 7 will be mad....

But it really isn't much of a playoff with only 4 teams. 
IMO... with 5 power conferences it is immediately flawed to have a playoff that automatically discludes a conference winner (and sometimes two).

I suppose if we have to pick only 4 teams, all teams should be mushed into 4 giant conferences.
30 something teams in each lol

---