rickyspub

Take this to the realignment thread... Realistically here is what we would get: 8 team playoff, P5 champs get autobids. 1 spot reserved for highest ranked G5. Seeding and 2 wild cards picked by ESPN's dingleberry committee. A less, realistic, and fairer version that isn't stupid: 8 team playoff, P5 champs get autobids. No conference has more than 2 teams. Three wildcards picked from rankings with approved, transparent computer rankings. Same formula would be used for seeding. (Even better if the computer models have to count FCS teams as a negative factor.)

These aren't AP voters...not sure why that would impact committee decisions.

It is a big reason why we have to bother with a CCG. The supermajority represent conferences that have a CCG. Why the hell would they vote in a Big 12 team with 12 games when their representatives have to take the risk of a 13th game? I am sure the Pac and Big 10 reps will often act as a bloc as will the SEC and ACC reps. Perhaps one of these days the Big 10, Pac, and Big 12 will tell an SEC team to fuck off for only having 8 conference games and for playing 2 G5s and an FCS team OOC. They will probably play that card against an ACC team at some point, because I bet ESPN dictates that they overrate the SEC.

I does and will continue to, so take the loss pussy. The Big 12 wants to be a factor in the playoffs. The committee is a bullshit cabal whose membership ultimately is biased towards SEC, Big 10, ACC, and Pac. If those conferences are going to risk their playoff spot with a CCG, their committee reps are going to ensure that game gets overvalued. Add in that ESPN has bigger stakes in those conferences than the Big 12 and they too will welcome pushing out a Big 12 team, especially if it won't cost them any or many eyeballs. Texas may be the most insulated from this, but then we don't get to make the conference's rules. (Sadly, even if the playoff went to 8 and the Big 12 got an auto-bid and made the CCG unnecessary, it will still exist purely as a money grab.)

What should the conference care about? Without the CCG the first place team gets left to the mercy of the committee, whose purpose is supposedly to pick the best teams, but instead makes up rules to pick teams based the conferences they represent and ESPN's financial interests. Without the CCG, a Big 12 team pretty much needs to be undefeated to ensure a spot in the playoffs. No one cares if we played 1 G5 and 11 P5 teams while Bama played 1 FCS, 2 G5s, and 10 P5 teams, we'll get trumped by them if both teams have a loss. Rinse and repeat with (at least) OSU, Michigan, PSU, Clemson, FSU, Miami, USC, Washington, Stanford, UCLA, and at this point pretty much any other SEC team not named Vanderbilt or Kentucky. Kind of like ND, another blue blood who has no room for error when it comes to the playoffs, but without the luxury of being able to schedule 7 games however you want.

Woo hoo! Shitty NY6 bowl games in perpetuity! Nothing like getting a game that doesn't matter at the end of the year, while the 'big boys' play for the hardware that matters.

I think the problem was that we weren't going pay above $5M. We probably needed to money-whip some of the entrenched, quality coaches. That is assuming Patterson actually reached out to them. Of the guys that we supposedly contacted or interviewed, I think Briles would have been successful here, but obviously I am glad my pick didn't get the job. I am confident Franklin would have failed here. In some ways his Vandy tenure has played out similarly at PSU, beat the bad teams, lose to anyone with equal or more talent. Look at PSU's schedules since he took over. His 7-6 seasons are likely losing records here. He now has them winning through easy OOC schedules and a Big 10 that is weak compared to the Big 12. He might have made it to year 4 just because he seems to avoid the KU-type losses, but I think he would have regularly gotten outcoached in the Big 12, so just replace Strong's few good wins with some of his bad losses. He still hasn't beaten as many ranked teams as Strong did in 3 years. He can definitely recruit though. I am not as sure about Mora. At the time we were looking, he had a solid resume that showed he could recruit and win against ranked teams. Didn't follow UCLA enough to understand why the bottom fell out the way it did.

This thread serves the purpose of keeping a bunch of stupid threads from starting after the first quarter of every other game from people who feel the need to bitch. At the very least, can't we wait until he wins a couple of conference titles in the next few season? I don't want to go through another 5 year plus stretch where we win games, but don't actually win anything of actual consequence.

I wonder if getting rid of Meh would help with CJ and LJH staying for their senior seasons?

The skating comparison is apt. The P5 teams do an Olympic-quality routine with slight variations in the level of difficulty. UCF's routine is the equivalent of a skate-around at the public rink. There Olympic routine has a high likelihood of a fall, while UCF's routine requires effort to fuck up, especially if you are an Olympic-quality skater.

Fondren tries to make the case that UCF deserves to be in based on some silly SRS stat, but to him your stats are bunk! LOL. He tells us that Bama sucks because The Citadel sucks and doesn't even compare to 2005's 4-7 OSU team, but then tell us that UCF deserves to get in even though they might have played one team this season that is of the same quality of that 2005 OSU team.

No, UCF is playing in the FBS because of money, the 'good ole boys' are playing in FBS because that is where they have been since college football's infancy. The G5 have even agreed to the rules that give the P5 the power to set up the current playoff that doesn't have auto-bids because they don't want to lose access to the millions they get as hush money to fill out P5 schedules. These G5 schools don't care about winning a championship until they go open hand to the media to try to get someone to make the case that a team, which has literally played nor beaten any team of any account, should be in the playoffs. Even by your own account Michigan has a better win than UCF in Penn State. If they beat Ohio State then they will have 2. Plus they will have played another 7 games against opponents that would have a better chance at beating UCF than any team on UCF's schedule. Their one loss is to another team that is likely going to be undefeated and in the playoffs...by playing what is funnily enough being called a 'weak' schedule, but compared to UCF, ND's schedule is Herculean. Michigan's three game slate of Penn State, Ohio State, and Notre Dame is beyond what UCF has faced in 2 years, but it is Michigan that is undeserving in your world.

On paper, they have named themselves 2014 National Champs. What more do you fucking want?!? On your toilet paper they don't lose to anyone in the ACC outside of Clemson. Whoop-tee-doo! On my paper they lose at least 2 and likely more if they played Clemson's schedule. I am not sure they even beat aggy. So they can beat shitty teams with shitty players and shitty coaching, that describes a lot of teams, except a lot of teams don't get to play 10 shitty teams like UCF. They have to actually play teams that have long-tenured multimillion dollar coaches and invest in multimillion dollar facilities. OU and Michigan get "passes" because they play schedules that are better than Clemson and Bama's and win all but one. UCF plays the 114th schedule out of 120 teams. This might be the year that Michigan makes a run and wins it all from the 4th slot just like Ohio State did in 2014. (We all know OU is going to lose one of their next two and not make the playoffs.) Maybe UCF competes, but other than some metric a computer nerd pulled out of his ass, why do they get to trump Michigan or even Ohio State should either win the Big 10?

UCF wouldn't even be in the Top 10, much less the Top 20 if they played ND's schedule. Sure UCF could potentially beat anyone on any given day. You know who else could beat anyone on any given day? My Texas Longhorns. Why are we not in the conversation for a playoff spot? UCF has played maybe one team as good as Maryland, and I am not sure early season Pitt walks away with a win against them, certainly no one of OSU or WVU quality. They haven't beaten anyone as good as OU or ISU, hell they haven't beaten anyone as good as Tech. I don't understand why they should get the chance but we shouldn't, especially if the metric is that they could possibly compete against the Top 4.

Didn't their supposedly 'best TE' in the nation not even make the finals for the best TE in the nation award?

Not in FBS. If they want a shot, they should move down to FCS where the rules for the playoff are established. There are just too many good teams that have legit schedules that are difficult to navigate without dropping a game or two. UCF's schedule is a joke and they play in a conference of teams that are only in FBS to leech their millions from the playoffs and have a better chance at getting a million dollar pay day from a P5 team wanting a home win.

They had several close games in 2004 as well, against teams nowhere near as good at the 2005 domers. It is also possible that the 2005 D just wasn't as tight in the later part of games where they were already up by huge margins.

What was the difference in their SOS? In 2004 they started with what turned out to be a very game VT, but ND was down. In 2005, both ND and Fresno State were tough. The Pac wasn't great shakes either year, but I thought the 2005 group was a bit tougher than in 2004.

If you are prepared and know the offense, the main issues when you get on the field are how quickly you process and how you deal with the pressure. I am not sure what any player is going to glean from the sideline that they aren't going to get in film study. I would hope Rising is paying attention when we are on offense and is thinking about what he would do during each play, but I am not sure getting advice from Shane, who might not want to clutter his own mind with someone else's questions, is necessarily going to make a difference if Rising is pressed into service.

Huh? Then in that case the 2004 team had an offense that you really didn't fear. The 2005 team was more dominant on the scoreboard, so I guess all those teams that got beat worse in 2005 vs. 2004 just got cocky because they didn't fear the 2005 team's D?

The 2004 team has 3 games where they won by less than a touchdown and 5 games that were within two touchdowns. The 2005 team only had one game that was within 7 and a total of 3 that were within two touchdowns. If the 2005 D took two steps back, their O took 4 steps forward. That team cracked 50 pts 7 times! The 2004 team didn't do that once. 34 points was their lowest output in 2005. The 2004 team didn't crack 30 in 3 games.

Auburn played a pretty weak schedule that year and then barely beat 10-2 VT in their bowl game. Interestingly, VT lost to USC in the first game of season by 11. That USC team was actually quite a bit less dominant than the one we beat the next year.

It's not like there isn't time spent each week in film review with the coaches, where they tell all QBs what was optimal on each play.

I would take this straight up, but if I were allowed one tweak, I would return to some form of BCS formula for the seeding and fuck off with the ESPN-shill committee we currently have.

But if any fanbase knows everything about being a beta, it is aggy.