UCF to claim national championship after 13-0 season
- Thread starter HornsRuleU
- Start date
Love it. The current system is flawed. Having a board pick the playoff teams renders the season irrelevant. Time to go to 4 conferences with the winner of each going to the playoff. This way the regular season is in itself an elimination tournament.
Can atm do this as well?
Can atm do this as well?
Stupid. I don't mind them making a few jabs at the system and what not, but parades and banners make them look aggy. The "current" system is flawed argument seems to ignore that the we have yet to have an unflawed system and yet most schools have learned how to conduct themselves by now.
Atm has never gone 13-0. They have always had to play daddy. They deserve a parade especially if they get 80 degree weather.
I meant aggy as a state of mind, not necessarily the actual program. Non P5 conferences have gone undefeated before and didn't go aggy.
if you read one of the bear bryant apologist's books, bama claims titles in many different ways. "oh, in this year the only poll that mattered was this, but in the next year it was this other one, and the polls counted after the bowls in this year but not in this one." i know at one point they didn't count bowls for one poll (which is how some of us claim the 70 title) but they did for the other. but in this particular book, and it's been a few years, there was such a moving target to benefit alabama that you can't help but roll your eyes. like ag and their 39 title-- 7 schools claim that one. i THINK ag got the main poll, to their credit, but i can't say that for certain because USC also claims it.
They had a great year but there is a system in place to decide a winner....on the field. If anything, they should be super proud of the accomplishment and file complaints concerning why or why not they weren't involved in the playoff but to claim a championship without playing for one.....makes them look very petty and very aggy.
Conference champ from each P5. + Highest ranked non P5 school + 2 at large bids with an automatic bid for ND if they are top 10.
5 + 1 + 2 = 8.
Let's get it on.
5 + 1 + 2 = 8.
Let's get it on.
I know I'm in the minority, but I strongly prefer the current system to this kind of arrangement (or to automatic bids for conference champions in a four power conference world).
If we're going to expand the playoff, I'd still like the guiding principle to be that the eight best teams should play, regardless of conference. I have no interest in a system that would let an 8-5 team have a shot at a national championship (e.g., the 2012 Big Ten champion Wisconsin Badgers). And I think I hate the idea of an automatic bid for G5 teams even more.
While under an automatic qualifier system it would certainly be possible for a mediocre team to sneak in like the example you gave. Those would be rare circumstances. At least automatic qualifiers take it out of a conference room and decide most of it on the field.
And that 8-5 team won a game over a 12-0 team that will likely get an at large bid. So, problem solved.
F*** ND. They are part of the at large. The end.
There isn't really an unflawed way to determine a champion from a pool of 130 teams where you have a limited amount of games to play, short of major playoff system and then you lose the romance that is the regular season college football.
Automatic qualifiers say good bye cool non conference matchups. Eyeballing and inviting select teams to the party then you got more Russian judge nonsense. Murphy's law and all whatever system you set up the whatever bad can happen will happen.
Automatic qualifiers say good bye cool non conference matchups. Eyeballing and inviting select teams to the party then you got more Russian judge nonsense. Murphy's law and all whatever system you set up the whatever bad can happen will happen.
It's not nearly as uncommon as you think. And the fact that it can -- and would -- happen at all is enough for me to be against that setup.
While that Wisconsin team is among the most egregious examples, there are plenty of years where a team with three or four losses would have have a shot at the national championship in this proposed system. Just since the formation of the Big 12, we'd have seen the following teams in the CFP: 1996 Texas at 8-4, 1997 Syracuse at 9-3, 1998 Syracuse at 8-3, 1999 Stanford at 8-3, 2000 Michigan at 8-3, 2001 LSU at 9-3, 2002 FSU at 9-4, 2003 KSU at 11-3 (with two of those wins coming over D-IAA schools), 2004 Pittsburgh at 8-3, 2005 FSU at 8-4, 2008 VTech at 9-4, 2010 UConn at 8-4, 2011 WVU at 9-3, and 2011 Clemson at 10-3.
I'd rather go back to the BCS than see a system that lets any of those teams into a playoff for the national championship. Hell, I'd rather go back to the old bowl system than see conference champions -- now matter how weak, no matter the number and nature of embarrassing losses -- automatically granted a berth in the CFP.
I love the fact that throughout college football history, a team has generally had to have a perfect or near-perfect season to be the national champion. This is one of the several characteristics that makes college football the greatest sport, in my opinion, and I hope to never see a system adopted that makes college football more like pro football or some other inferior sport.
Last edited:
That 8-5 team's two best wins were over a Utah State team that finished ranked No. 16 and a Nebraska team that finished ranked No. 25. Those were also the only two wins that Wisconsin team had against teams with winning records.
Regardless, no problem is solved, because that utterly undeserving team gets a berth in the CFP. That is the problem, in my book.
Actually you have a chance to get more cool non conference games because a non con loss doesn’t kill you and you’ll still need a decent resume to get an at large bid if you don’t win your conference.
Also we’re not determining the national championship out of 130 schools. Only the schools in the power 5 have a snow balls chance at winning the title in the current system so your really talking about whst 40 schools? If you left a spot for group of 5 schools that probably grows the list to 60 schools realistically.
Maybe, but I see it as teams more likely to be playing tune up games before non conference rather than potential gritty matchups. Even if you have a Texas / USC matchup if they are both contenders in their conference what are the chances they are going 100%. It be like preseason NFL.
Well yeah I’d be for that. It should happen. The 4 team system could work if there was a way to regulate scheduling a bit.
Dumb. It makes them look little league. If that’s how they want to look, so be it. But, they aren’t & never will be this season’s national champions.
Let’s be honest, would UCF have survived a first round match up against Georgia or OU? Then, would UCF survive a second round matchup against Alabama?
I get where teams like UCF is coming from. The big schools and the playoff committee says “well you don’t play anyone, so you don’t belong with us”. Yet most of the big schools wouldn’t even think about scheduling a Bosie State or a top mid major so how are they supposed to improve their scheduling? Then when they actually beat one or the schools it’s “well yeah but they didn’t actually take the game seriously”.
I say If were so confident they don’t belong give them a way to play their way in and show I on the field.
I say If were so confident they don’t belong give them a way to play their way in and show I on the field.
They beat Auburn who beat UGA and Bama. I don’t know if they win, but I don’t think they get blown off the field either.
If I had told you the Butler basketball team was going to make not only one national title game but make back to back title games I would of been laughed at. Now I get it’s easier to make those type of runs in basketball than football, but the one thing I hate about college football is people assume they know what would happen instead of letting the players on the field decide.
This is really overstating things. Boise State is far and away the most consistently successful mid-major program in recent history (with TCU not being too far off prior to 2012). While I imagine Boise State would have genuine difficulty lining up a slate of power programs for its OOC games every year, none of the rest are consistently good enough to have that anything close to the same kind of trouble if that's what they actually wanted to do (unless they were to become consistently good).
The real issue is that ADs at these small schools still need to generate revenue and are not interested in signing three or four 2-for-1 or one-time away game deals with P5 programs to fill out their OOC schedule every year. They need to play home games. That's understandable, but it also means that they bear a significant amount of the responsibility for their programs' weak schedules.
Last edited:
I am going to assume you picked Auburn to beat UCF correct?
Making it to the MNC game & winning it are 2 different things. This dialogue is about whether UCF is worthy to claim the MNC.
The answer is no. They were left out of the CFB playoffs - as was Ohio State & the PAC 12 champs. Just because UCF got up for 1 ranked OOC opponent, doesn’t make them worthy. It doesn’t prove they could do it a week later against a better opponent.
It only proves they beat their weak a$$ Conference & barely beat Auburn.
Guess what. Because of the system we have there is no way to find out. They played every team on their schedule and then beat a team that beat both finalists in this supposedly National Title tournament.
You can't prove that they wouldn't Alabama in a week if they played them. Hence the stupidity of college football continues.
Anyone can get up for one game. UCF won a nail biter against Auburn & beat a lot of patsies.
Put the top 2 teams of each P5 conference in the American Conference & they all go undefeated
