NCAA recognizes UCF's national championship in record book

#26
#26
Maybe we should go with an 8 game conference schedule followed by a giant playoff bracket which would generate a fluid schedule for the last 4 games. Then the bowls/playoff spots.
 
#27
#27
Since this became a story, apparently the NCAA decided to revise the record book and list all the Colley Matrix champs. So congrats 2011 Oklahoma St, 2012 Notre Dame, and 2016 Alabama.

But, at least for now, they aren't doing that with all of the other computer rankings. 2008 Utah is the Anderson & Hester champ, but tough luck to 2011 LSU and 2007 Missouri.

http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_records/2018/FBS.pdf
 
#28
#28
05_never_again said:
Yep. Football is the only sport where the NCAA doesn't name a champion. Which is kind of counter-intuitive given that it is the biggest money maker and most popular sport, so you'd figure it is the sport where they would most want to name one.
Click to expand...
As long as they let various selectors pick the champion it keeps people talking about it
 
#34
#34
I call this the "Dobbs4Heisman" approach: If you say ridiculous things over and over and loud enough and obnoxiously enough, people eventually will just cave in and say, "Whatever, just shut up about it already."
 
#35
#35
That's both the beauty and the fallacy of the CFB system. Pretty much anybody can claim a championship, and there will be endless debates offer the merits of it.
 
#36
#36
I think they deserve it. Sorry but the system is a joke. Alabama didn’t even make it to its own conference title game yet makes the playoff while an undefeated team gets left out.
Do I think they would’ve won it all, probably not, but they deserved more of a chance than Alabama.
 
#37
#37
So the NCAA has a system in place to determine the National Champion in "Division I" football...and then allows a team that didn't qualify to claim a national championship alongside the team that won it under the existing NCAA rules...did I get that right?

Wonderful. Everybody gets a trophy. Well...except, say...Georgia. Never mind that you beat the team that beat you earlier in the year, and then you lost the National Championship game. There can be only one...plus UCF, of course.

Them's the rules...except when they're not.

Go back and watch the UCF-Auburn game. Auburn would rather have been at the Amateur Proctology Convention, and it showed. Anybody who buys in, or believes that UCF would have beaten Alabama, or Georgia, or a give-a-**** Auburn, or Clemson, or Oklahoma, or half a dozen other teams that got left on the outside looking in...is nuts. Plain and simple.

I'll grant you this: they would have slaughtered UT.

Yes, the existing system is in dire need of improvement. And perhaps expansion. But until and unless you make the cut and run the gauntlet...the only thing you can "claim" with any validity is that you went undefeated.

For those of you who think they have a valid claim, I guess we owe Tulane half-ownership of our NC trophy as well, right?

This is right up there with BYU's National Championship. Crazier than a sprayed roach.

Go Vols.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UTNoFear
#40
#40
MyBloodRunnethOrange said:
That's both the beauty and the fallacy of the CFB system. Pretty much anybody can claim a championship, and there will be endless debates offer the merits of it.
Click to expand...
Actually, I thought the whole point of the CFP, and the BCSNCG before it, was to get rid of the "claimed championship" thing. I get how multiple schools could and did claim titles in the poll era. However, if you have a mechanism that is supposed to be the mechanism for determining a champion, how do you have multiple schools saying they won it? When the CFP was created I thought that was an agreement to agree that the winner of this playoff would be the champ. In the BCSNCG/CFP era, why is the NCAA listing multiple title winners? If you didn't win the BCSNCG or CFP, your claim is inherently invalid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GreyWolf1129
#42
#42
05_never_again said:
Actually, I thought the whole point of the CFP, and the BCSNCG before it, was to get rid of the "claimed championship" thing. I get how multiple schools could and did claim titles in the poll era. However, if you have a mechanism that is supposed to be the mechanism for determining a champion, how do you have multiple schools saying they won it? When the CFP was created I thought that was an agreement to agree that the winner of this playoff would be the champ. In the BCSNCG/CFP era, why is the NCAA listing multiple title winners? If you didn't win the BCSNCG or CFP, your claim is inherently invalid.
Click to expand...

To a certain degree, I think this is a subtle dig by the NCAA. They are completely cut out of the CFP process, much like they were cut out of the BCS.
 
#43
#43
05_never_again said:
Actually, I thought the whole point of the CFP, and the BCSNCG before it, was to get rid of the "claimed championship" thing. I get how multiple schools could and did claim titles in the poll era. However, if you have a mechanism that is supposed to be the mechanism for determining a champion, how do you have multiple schools saying they won it? When the CFP was created I thought that was an agreement to agree that the winner of this playoff would be the champ. In the BCSNCG/CFP era, why is the NCAA listing multiple title winners? If you didn't win the BCSNCG or CFP, your claim is inherently invalid.
Click to expand...
To a certain extent that is the purpose, but you have to remember that the BCS and now the CFP are agreements between the P5 conferences and the major bowls. Like bamawriter said, the NCAA is on the outside looking in. When the agreement was made all the schools outside of the P5 are left out except for one team that is guaranteed to be thrown a few table scraps. What UCF did is take those scraps and use it to make a case for themselves.
 
#44
#44
I Been Vol fan since 76....I live here in northeast Alabama about 15 minutes from were coach Pruitt was raised and started out with his dad Dale....I live amongst this crazy bunch of Bammer fans lol....So I love it that UCF got recognized... I love to hear these Bammer fans cry lol...
 
#45
#45
JFBanicki said:
I think they deserve it. Sorry but the system is a joke. Alabama didn’t even make it to its own conference title game yet makes the playoff while an undefeated team gets left out.
Do I think they would’ve won it all, probably not, but they deserved more of a chance than Alabama.
Click to expand...

Lol, no they didn't. Not even close.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GreyWolf1129 and bamawriter
#46
#46
GreyWolf1129 said:
So the NCAA has a system in place to determine the National Champion in "Division I" football...and then allows a team that didn't qualify to claim a national championship alongside the team that won it under the existing NCAA rules...did I get that right?

Wonderful. Everybody gets a trophy. Well...except, say...Georgia. Never mind that you beat the team that beat you earlier in the year, and then you lost the National Championship game. There can be only one...plus UCF, of course.

Them's the rules...except when they're not.

Go back and watch the UCF-Auburn game. Auburn would rather have been at the Amateur Proctology Convention, and it showed. Anybody who buys in, or believes that UCF would have beaten Alabama, or Georgia, or a give-a-**** Auburn, or Clemson, or Oklahoma, or half a dozen other teams that got left on the outside looking in...is nuts. Plain and simple.

I'll grant you this: they would have slaughtered UT.

Yes, the existing system is in dire need of improvement. And perhaps expansion. But until and unless you make the cut and run the gauntlet...the only thing you can "claim" with any validity is that you went undefeated.

For those of you who think they have a valid claim, I guess we owe Tulane half-ownership of our NC trophy as well, right?

This is right up there with BYU's National Championship. Crazier than a sprayed roach.

Go Vols.
Click to expand...

Actually BYU's is more legit; I mean it's at least the AP and Coaches Poll, even though how they got it is crazy. But they got it because they went undefeated and for some reason to some people that apparently is enough to let you claim an NC.

I guess these guys think Tulane has a claim for 1998 then.
 
#47
#47
MyBloodRunnethOrange said:
To a certain extent that is the purpose, but you have to remember that the BCS and now the CFP are agreements between the P5 conferences and the major bowls. Like bamawriter said, the NCAA is on the outside looking in. When the agreement was made all the schools outside of the P5 are left out except for one team that is guaranteed to be thrown a few table scraps. What UCF did is take those scraps and use it to make a case for themselves.
Click to expand...
True, but the G5 schools are not explicitly left out of the playoff. I know they think they implicitly are, but there's nothing saying that a G5 team cannot make the CFP. I disagree they are totally cut out of the CFP process. They actually have a better chance of winning a national title than they ever have because there are 4 slots instead of 2, and in the case of a weak P5 conference champ they could jump that team if their SoS was good enough.

The model for a G5 team making the playoff is to have a schedule like Houston had in 2016. Houston had 3 regular season losses so they came way short of meeting this, but their schedule that year was more than good enough to make the playoff if they went undefeated. The American was fairly strong by its standards that year and Houston defeated Oklahoma and Louisville who were each ranked #3 in the country at the time they played them. If UCF had just one impressive victory over a P5 team last year, I wouldn't have quibbled with them getting in even though their schedule would have been weaker than the other teams in it.

There's a big difference between playing a G5 schedule then beating a ranked team in a bowl game after the season is over and beating multiple ranked teams during conference play throughout the season. Football is a game of attrition. UCF didn't play a ranked team in the regular season until their season finale. Alabama, which played a pretty weak schedule last year, at least played 4 ranked teams and defeated 3 of them (at the time they played them) over the course of the year. Ohio State played 3, Georgia played 3, Oklahoma played 3.

Above all, we need to get rid of this notion that going undefeated alone means you should win the title. This is college sports we are talking about, and the strength of schedules of these teams are wildly different.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GreyWolf1129
#48
#48
rjd970 said:
So? They went undefeated, how many teams last year did that, P5 or otherwise? They beat who they played.

Do I think Bama/UGA/OK/Wisc would steamroll UCF? Sure. But the fact remains nobody knows for sure. On paper AU should have destroyed UCF.

None of this is objective and it is rarely settled on the field.
Click to expand...
being champ now isn't just a passive thing where going undefeated is enough. you have to actively win in the playoffs for it to count. Bama played another game than UCF did. heck UGA can argue they beat Auburn too, who beat Bama.
 
#49
#49
05_never_again said:
True, but the G5 schools are not explicitly left out of the playoff. I know they think they implicitly are, but there's nothing saying that a G5 team cannot make the CFP. I disagree they are totally cut out of the CFP process. They actually have a better chance of winning a national title than they ever have because there are 4 slots instead of 2, and in the case of a weak P5 conference champ they could jump that team if their SoS was good enough.

The model for a G5 team making the playoff is to have a schedule like Houston had in 2016. Houston had 3 regular season losses so they came way short of meeting this, but their schedule that year was more than good enough to make the playoff if they went undefeated. The American was fairly strong by its standards that year and Houston defeated Oklahoma and Louisville who were each ranked #3 in the country at the time they played them. If UCF had just one impressive victory over a P5 team last year, I wouldn't have quibbled with them getting in even though their schedule would have been weaker than the other teams in it.

There's a big difference between playing a G5 schedule then beating a ranked team in a bowl game after the season is over and beating multiple ranked teams during conference play throughout the season. Football is a game of attrition. UCF didn't play a ranked team in the regular season until their season finale. Alabama, which played a pretty weak schedule last year, at least played 4 ranked teams and defeated 3 of them (at the time they played them) over the course of the year. Ohio State played 3, Georgia played 3, Oklahoma played 3.

Above all, we need to get rid of this notion that going undefeated alone means you should win the title. This is college sports we are talking about, and the strength of schedules of these teams are wildly different.
Click to expand...
Everyone talks about their strength of schedule, but they can only play the teams that they face. Problem is that the P5 schools want to load their schedules with 3 built in wins and one decent ooc opponent. That doesn't leave much room for schools like UCF or Boise State. Another solution is to invite them to join the big boys. UCF would be a good fit for the ACC. Houston is a natural fit for the Big 12, and Boise is a perfect fit for the PAC 12.
 
#50
#50
LouderVol said:
being champ now isn't just a passive thing where going undefeated is enough. you have to actively win in the playoffs for it to count. Bama played another game than UCF did. heck UGA can argue they beat Auburn too, who beat Bama.
Click to expand...
Yeah, UCF's transitive property argument is invalid because they only carry it to the point where it makes them look the best. I didn't really hear them saying they should have been in the playoff until they beat Auburn. Then the "we beat the team that beat both teams who played in the title" argument came along. OK, let's play that out...

You beat Auburn, who beat both Georgia and Alabama. When you stop it right there, it sounds really impressive. But Auburn also lost multiple games last year, so let's look at who they lost to. They lost badly to Georgia (Auburn and Georgia played twice; notice how UCF mentions the win but not the ugly loss), lost to Clemson (another CFP team), and lost to LSU (an up-and-down SEC team).

Within the teams Auburn lost to, Clemson lost to Syracuse (who finished 4-8 and was only 3-3 at the time they defeated Clemson). Clemson was also handily beaten by Alabama. I know Auburn beat Alabama, but they also lost to a team that lost convincingly to Alabama. This is tortured, I know, but I'm just carrying out UCF's logic to its conclusion.

LSU had 3 regular season losses, including a really bad loss to Troy.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top